tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN August 8, 2011 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
they pay. they benefit the most. we want to increase security. we even have a department of homeland security. we want to fight wars, but we do not want to pay for it. we cannot have all these things. we cannot have them without paying for it. on spending, we have to change the tone. everything is spending. every business that operates spends, whether or not they are reorganizing or not. everything is spending. it's ridiculous, a tone that says we need to stop spending. that means nobody will show up to work. nobody will answer the phone when you call 911. no one's going to save you when you are out hiking on some mountain -- to come get you. it's ridiculous. we need to change our tone. host: let's take a look at this piece from "usa today," an
associated press story. "he is sticking around. economicf obama's advisers have departed, including lawrence summers and two chief economic advisers." let's take a listen to david axelrod is speaking this weekend on the tea party's role, in his opinion, on what he thinks they may have done to lead to the downgrade.
let's take a listen. >> let's look at the history of this. this is essentially a tea party downgrade. the tea party brought us to the brink of a default. by the way, you said before -- if we had defaulted on our debt, the consequences would have been dramatic and lasting. you know, it was the right thing to do, avoid that default. right now we're at the center for american car press. they are posted a discussion on the future of the african- american vote. among the speakers, don edwards. and jonathan cape march. this is live coverage from the
welcome to you this event, and also announced the leadership institute, a new program that promotes diversity. it is part of the effort to create a stronger progressive movement that is more reflective of the changing nation. today's panel is the fourth in a series of the beds to better understand the various segments of the voting population. we have had panels on women voters, asian american, and today we are pleased to bring you an excellent wind up to discuss the african-american vote. we are thrilled that are key note speaker is congress woman, na edwards.an she serves on the committee at if rotation and infrastructure, and technology, and the human
rights commission. she is a member of the congressional black caucus, at breakfast -- the purpose of caucus. -- the progressive caucus. after she makes remarks, my colleagues and i will moderate the q&a and a panel discussion. >>[applause] >> good afternoon. thank you all very much, and think you for being here on a really pleasant august day in washington. because i represent a congressional district that is right outside the city, i always love august. the traffic is so much better, and i get to go to things in here a lot of wonderful
interesting panels in defense, so i appreciate being here. and events. i represent maryland congressional fourth district, which represents the two counties right outside of washington, d.c. i think they mirror what is happening in metropolitan areas at all across this country. prince george's county is a majority african-american county by population. we have had really strong growth over this last decade, like many counties among our hispanic and latino populations. montgomery county also bordering the district of columbia, is now a majority minority county. maryland, like many states, is well on its way over this next decade, to becoming a majority minority stake.
those are the realities of the demographics all across our country. i happen to be pleased to represent counties but also many people in both of these counties are doing extremely well. the population in prince george's county is not as reflective of the african american population and the demographics of other places around the country, of other counties of its type, but it enjoys a level of success, both politically and economically that is very different than some others in the country. nonetheless, the same concerns we have in prince george's and montgomery and that urban areas in growing areas of change demography are problems that other communities across this country face. when faced with the question
about 2012 and what the demographic seat suggest, and beyond that, i have to look to those counties as a way to reflect what might be happening around the country. while many of a share a lot of concerns and feel some of the same challenges, we are not among the list. i think that is a mistake that this may pose a clique, both by democrats and republicans. -- that is made politically, both by democrats and republicans. i can tell you concerns mirror concerns nationally. there are concerns about jobs and job creation, about the relative disparities between those who earn a lot and those who did not earn so much. they are the same challenges of
growing your children and educating them and sending them on to colleges and universities and trade schools. in concerns on whether those young people will be able to find jobs in the larger economies. i can tell you that a majority african-american congressional district, that across both of these lines of these very different yet very similar counties, that people are also concerned about very mundane things like transportation policy and how they can get to and from work and around their communities. they are concerned about whether their air is clear and clean and whether their water is clear and clean. they believe the national policies need to be more reflective of the broader communities that we represent. are these african-american concerns or american concerns?
i think there is a mixed question there. i read it just over this last weekend that there have been a lot of articles written about whether president obama will enjoy the support among african- american populations, those on the left of the political scale and that kind of enthusiasm over this next election. what i would share with you is i think the frustrations that people feel our frustrations that all americans are feeling and this really tough economy, and that whomever -- it president obama is reelected, if there is another canada on the other side that rises to the floor, that they will have to address those concerns. so i am one is challenged to think about what do those demographics mean for african- americans? because there is an african
american in the white house, it does that change the way we think about policies and politics? is it different in the way we think about are several rights, rights of american people? i love president obama. i like what he's doing sometimes, and i am critical of what he is doing. no more critical than i would be if anybody else occupied the white house. this is what i hear among african american families and communities that i represent. here we are, we are moving towards 2012. we are asking ourselves what sort of policies are we going to pursue and how will we represent that in our politics? when i think about the county's that i represent, another thing that have happened in that
demographic shift is that the community we describe as african american is also african. it is more of a black community, and not just an african-american community if you get the line i am trying to cross. in one part of the county represented in montgomery county we have had huge growth of african immigrants. in parts of both of these counties. that also impacts the way we think about our local politics and the way we think about policies. it means that in representing the community as diverse as i do that the hispanic population an african american population and asian and south asian population and combine that with the white population are concerned about other issues. they are concerned about immigration and the impact of immigration on the larger economy.
not concerned so that they want to restrain that, but concern they want to manage it. i think these discussions can play out in many different ways of many different communities. i am we share with you the way that happened in mind. some have asked whether given the african-american community's high unemployment, what the expectations are among african americans in this next election. i will just share with you that when i look at unemployment, i look at the unemployment numbers that were released just last week. one of the not so reported facts in the 116,000 job growth in last week's report is that there was actually a higher rate of growth among african americans that were reported in a 116,000.
to be sure to really get the economy growing, we will need three times that number of jobs created over the course of weeks and months in order to make a difference in the economy. there are african americans who came in who were unemployed in this recession, who as the economy grows, they will get back into the workforce. we have a couple of different economies going on, and i think this is a concern that is raised among african american political leaders and raising communities when it comes to unemployment. when we challenge the administration, as we would challenge any administration to focus on, job creation. we have those people that will go back into the economy across the board, and as the economy recovers, and i believe it will. we also record chronic
unemployment that did not just take place with this last recession, but has been going on for couple of recessions in some communities. that requires a different set of strategies than just getting the economy rolling again. some of us who are members of the congressional black caucus, there is hardly a week that goes by that one of us is not asked about whether or not president obama is doing even for black people. i think president obama is doing just what he needs to do. we could argue about how there needs to be more here in there and could all do it differently. i think part of our job and responsibility representing the majority african-american district and the congressional black caucus is to challenge the of administration the way we would challenge any other administration to do more and what is right by it all of our communities.
what does that mean for me? it probably means really focusing on creating jobs that grow the economy overall, but that train people for the skills they will need for the 21st century. recognizing job creation and training, recognizing the way we will rebuild this economy is not his views -- skills used in the 20th century. this is essentially a challenge for this president as he begins to define an agenda going forward for 2012. just like everyone else across the country is going to be asking those questions of the to president of nominees of the parties, we will ask that question of president obama. i think he is a cogent response to those questions about an economy he inherited. i think he has a cogent response about circumstances at
our institution that he has inherited, but he does have to have a response to that. when this larger economy begins to work again, i think by investing of things occur infrastructure and rebuilding roads and bridges and investing in mass transit, that these are things that will be the benefit of african-american so we can appropriately asked the question about whether this president or any president is doing what is right by all of our communities. i would note that one thing that resonated, and i was at coffee shops in my congressional district talking to people, and as i was out, people were really cognizant of the fact that they thought the president was fighting for pell grants. why is a fight for a program something that is a relatively small program within the larger febrile budget so important to
african american families? it is important because we have a generation of professionals now who benefited net -- like i did, and we of a growing generation that wants to send their kids to school that are facing, to the extent they own homes, are facing lower equity in their homes against with which to borrow to send their children to school, and for whom pell grant are in a form component, along with student loans, about the way their children can achieve in this century. they look at the defense of something like that like pell grants and the defense of social security and medicare and basic safety net programs, as a defense for a community that really struggles. i think republicans have missed the mark when it comes to reaching out to the african-
american communities. for example, in the recent debt ceiling debate, to hear the rumor mill of a gop strategy that would cut away pell grants and student loans, it is not that african-americans will not vote for republican candidates just because they're republican, but they will look at what the issues are and what the substance in's and that debate is in order to make a decision about whether someone is standing for them or not. that has always been true, and it is especially true in 2012. i would argue to those who are seeking to eke out what avert a percentage of the vote is they will need to look out the policies themselves and argue those, whether that is to an african-american community or the majority population. it is on that basis, that i know
in my community is on that basis that we will make our political decisions. the very fact that one party or another supports spending on the po grants and on student loan availability and on child nutrition and affordable housing and for safety net programs like retirement security for healthcare, speaking to those issues there, speaking to job creation, those are ways that you develop a relationship with the community. i know that is true among american -- african-american populations. most assuredly, it is true for all americans. whomever those candidates or whatever the political party is that speaks to those concerns, will gain to -- will gain the
support of the political candidates. we're not here to discuss the party politics, but it is important for us to focus on what it is that draws people to one party or another. that goes steeply to the question of whether or not one party or the other is responding to issues of concern to communities to african americans. i think i am going to stop there. i will say in closing, however, that again, african americans and the people that i represent in my congressional district are not of one mind about their politics, but they are in one mind about what it is that is needed to improve their communities. i think it is a challenge for 2012 and going forward in terms
of our relationship with hispanic communities, relationship with other minority communities is to be of a voice about things that will lift communities up. people are very sensitive to that, and they know those things. they know when it comes time to putting food on the table and some u.s. to got to find a job, what skills it takes to do that and what skills it takes to be in the work force and whether or not there are policies in place that enable them to have all americans take advantage of the american dream. let me take a few minutes to take just a few questions. i will to share with you that for all that has been written about, and i had a call to is that few days ago from someone saying the support among african-americans for president obama has dropped to historic lows. i would urge them to come out to
the fourth congressional district, because my experience is that has not been true. thank you. >> thank you. if you could say your name and what organization or with. >> i am part of this. and i remember when people were dying in losing their homes friday to get the right to vote. it seems to me there are too many african americans that do not vote. i live in virginia, and i do believe it would be in the interest of the black community to get out the vote to people who do not even know what a pell grant is.
it seems to me that every african-american communities have voted in as many members in the last eight elections as they did in the last presidential election, we would have had a very different outcomes. >> what will yourself people like yourself and others to have a public voice to get african- americans register to vote? >> in the 2008 election across the board, i think we saw huge motive because the recanted that that spoke to the concerns and needs and challenges of the american people.
i think the issues matter. i will say this is a challenge to many of my democratic colleagues as well. that when we speak to the issues that are of concern, whether it those are african american or others, because the challenge is not just as you suggested, but americans are not voting. the challenge is making certain we have candidates who are talking about issues in a way that is more than just talk, but suggest they will take a meaningful opportunity to work on things that are concerned. i would say working on things that are concerned to working people. i know what it is like to get up in the morning and struggle to pay the rent, mortgage and juggled old bills in a way that some americans do. i also know when people understand that we understand as
elected leaders, as those of is seeking public office, what they are facing every day, they will come out to vote for you. our challenge, whether you are at the top of the ticket as the president will be, or whether you are running for congress, is to speak to the needs of the american people. if you are representing african- american people and white people and everyone in between, speak to the needs of working people and people will show up to vote. >> >> i marked the steel from op-ed news. -- i am marta steel. i have always said that if ever one in this country could vote did vote, there would never be a
republican in office again. my immediate concern is what percentage of people in your district a boat, and what is the congressional black caucus -- caucus' doing about getting people out to vote in general? they are working against a lot of machinery, including corruption at the level of computerized voting machines. the effort really has to be redoubled. >> listen, and this country we are not a nation that requires people to vote. there are some countries where voting is a requirement, a constitutional requirement. it is not here in the united states. it is up to people to be
responsive to the needs of the community and to encourage them to vote. we also have to deal with statistic is used to get in the way of people being able to exercise their franchise in the way they need. i will point in particular to the unbelievable number of voter identification law that are cropping up across this country, that in effect operate in a way that are designed to suppress votes. particularly to suppress votes of people of color in a whole number of states. i think it is a challenge for our democracy to make sure we get rid of these barriers that get in the way of people being able to vote. i am very proud where we come from the state of maryland where we finally instituted the ability to vote over a couple of weeks period. it was refreshing to see people
who did not have to wait until a given tuesday in the evening after work to try to make it to day care and on to a polling place and older -- in order to exercise their franchise. they could do it all along. i think we need more of that. there has been some suggestion that somehow there is massive voter fraud going on around the country, and that is the reason why we need these laws in place, the voter idea laws. i do not know about you, but i do not carry my birth certificate anywhere. open up opportunities for people to be able to exercise their franchise in a way that is meaningful to them. that does not have anything to do with the machinery. that has to do with the system. i am one who has been a big
proponent, and i know is have been long before congress, of opening up opportunities for people to participate in the exercise their civic responsibilities. that means expanded opportunities to vote. sometimes there are people who hold elective office who do not mind the idea of having a very small electorates with which to deal, because it is a little shaky having to respond to every one, having to make phone calls and a lot of different places and stopped in at a whole bunch of different businesses that you never did before, but that is not good for democracy. we want to open up the marketplace of people that can show up and vote in many different places in the exercise their franchise in a way they see fit. i do not think we run any risk at all -- i cannot remember what state i was listening to someone
talk about allegations of voter fraud, and it was literally hundreds of thousands of votes cast, and 0.1% sign of anything that was identified as potential voter fraud. i think that is a suggestion that i believe is designed to suppress votes. a result in systemic policies that it in a way of people exercising their franchise. i think everyone who wants to vote should be able to do that. you could do it at a grocery store or the board of elections, it does not matter to me. >> but both of them said will be a very important issue in this election. you cannot wait until the last month before the election to
have the plan in action. the laws have already passed in the state has to registration. we know already that it is the block minority vote. i challenge the black caucus and the latino caucus to formulate a plan now so that people will have those appropriate ids. i have asked this question early -- over and over about early voting. that question should be answered now. formulate a plan now. i also challenge both caucuses to stop talking politics. i realize all of you like your jobs, and once they got here they want to say here, but what the people need is for you to
talk to them. i remember the last democratic president. what was key to clinton? he always knew how to connect with the people. people do not understand the debt crisis. they want to hear what it means to them. they do not understand with free shade -- they do not understand free trade with china. they only understand the food prices in wal-mart. you have to bring it down to their level. i still say the key to this election is -- even in the district of columbia, the machines did not work. it did not work after all for. no one did anything about it. -- it did not work after al gore. >> let me just close by saying
this. as to the election, i think your right, i think we have to have a strong turnout from a whole range of folks who comprise the 2008 electorate, and we need to make sure it they are as invigorated for 2012. that also means that we have to have as strong electorate that comprises young people, people my son's age. i want to give my son a reason to go out and vote, not just vote for his mother, but a reason to go out and vote. i want to -- we have to give young people a reason to vote. we have to say to them, to speak to them about their concerns, concerns for jobs and being able to take advantage in this work force. we have to speak to them about
our desire and what the differences are joined those that want to make sure they're able to get an education and those that are working against that. we need young people voting. we need a high voter turnout among african american, among latinos. to say the congressional black caucus has been doing quite a lot on this issue of what is happening systemically and some of the states around of your ids. not all of these walls are fully in place. some of them are being challenged in court. that fight is not over. even with that, we still have a lot of work to do to challenge people to come out and vote. the way we do that is to speak to their concerns. and none of us will get excited about going out to vote if people do not understand what it is we're interested in and will
wear conservative vote. that is the hallmark of the ideas on one wins an election. we also have to do what we need to do, both in congress and raising the ability of the issue of jobs in this country. the number one driver, what is on people's minds right now, is whether they and their children will be able to survive in this economy and survive through it and get a job where they can get up in the morning and take care of themselves and their families. the candidates to speak to those issues, whether they are national or local, will be the ones that invigorate the kind of energy that it will take for this 2012 election cycle. that said, up part of this discussion we're having today, it is about the changing demographics for 2012 and beyond and what that means about our politics and policies, what
it means about the kind of candidates to are running in elections all across this country of the national and local level. and states like mine where it is not just about the congressional lines, but about all of the local lines that become the pipeline for candidates that are more representative of the communities than they are now. this is a really the finding time for the american public to actually embraced who we are becoming. we're getting there, and who we are becoming as a much more diverse country. many more people have to participate in the political and civic light of -- pacific like of this country.
i want to think you all very much. i will be looking at the panel as this airs on c-span. i will encourage all of you coming and talking about 2012, you have to talk about the way in which communities of color me to be and should be a gauge in politics and civic life. thank you very much. [applause] >> think you. -- thank you. thank you all for joining us today. we are excited about the panel where corn to have. i will be quick introductions.
to my right is jonathan capehart. he is an msnbc contributor. and his band a substitute host on w n y c. to his right is dr. kim williams. before joining the faculty at portland state, she taught at harvard kennedy school. she is author of "mark one more." last but not least, juvall simmons. during the 2010 congressional election, he was the democratic political analyst for cbs news. please join me in welcoming our
panelists today. [applause] i was going to start off by talking about the economy. we will have plenty of time to get to that. i wanted to talk about voter turnout and support. that is something that was brought up in the last q&a session. 2008 was obviously it a historic election for many reasons. it was the first african american president turnout was unprecedented. the you see a way to recapture the excitement of 2008? will the excitement on the table be enough to drive people to come out in the numbers they did in 2008, given what we saw happen in 2010? >> sure. there are a number of strikes or reasons we can look at to explain why boater increase
test -- voter turnout house increase over time. i think social networking tools have a lot to do with that. i tend to expect that voter turnout will go down. i think of the other hand you have are really weak slate of americans reject republican candidates that i do not know if the republicans can rouse themselves to get to the polls. >> any thoughts on that? >> will it be like it was in 2008? i think you can never experience your first kiss price. -- twice.
the senate will be hard to replicate. there is a group of people to pay attention to, you as excited as the war about 2008, did not get a chance to participate. those were high school age children across the country. they are now in college. they do not know anything about employment, or maybe the ones that were in high school, and now they're starting at their first jobs in college. there is a population there for the candidates to go after that i think will make a difference. if you look at what has happened, what you are seeing in a place like michigan are these manufacturing job losses that have occurred, not just in the past four years, but over the course of the past decade.
there are a lot of people that voted for barack obama, not just for an individual policy reason, but something about their hearts. there was an aspirational gold lace all. it will be a challenge for the campaign to go back and connect on emotional level to get them to have a reaction. >> i agree with everything they said, especially like his analogy. the other thing to keep in mind is it was not just the fact that barack obama was running for president, but remember the knockdown primary fight happened between it senator clinton and then senator obama. there was excitement of the democratic base for months. once it was figured out, people ran to the polls. it is easy to vote with your
heart when you are listening to someone speak to you, speak to your ideal in vision of america. it is another thing to go into the voting booth in 2012 when that person inspired so much hope and change for the economy when the person has the record to run on and circumstances beyond his control that have been smacking him upside the head since before he walked into office. i think that will be the challenge for the administration, and it would be the challenge for any incumbent administration. because this administration is so historic and meaningful for people, i think that i agree with him that probably turn out will go down for the reasons that she said, but also i think people -- who was the woman who
said she was weary? that she loved the president but was clearly. i think that it was not novel, but the first time we heard it articulated. now there are whole lot more people that feel the way she does that they are leery. the challenge will be for him to pull them to the polls and vote for him. >> i think as we look at african-american voting percentage for democrats as something that is pretty steady, the president is getting over 94% of african-americans voting for him, but the african american vote is still persuade a bowl. -- is still persuade ovable. in ahave to constantly be persuasion mode about showing up. >> that was going to be my next question about the economy and whether or not the times we are in, if it leaves room for
someone else to make a persuasive argument. i know you have strong opinions about that. when you look at everything from the debt ceiling to the state and san which in the s&p downgrade -- to the satin sea in which and the debt downgrade, it shows african-american support has dropped from 77% in october to just over 50 percent now. is there opportunity for someone on the right to give a compelling narrative? i have to raise the question, is there an opportunity for someone to come and say is this working for you and i have something over here you should look at. >> i think republicans certainly do have a point, the economy is terrible. it is the bad for african- americans and all americans. that question assumes that the
americans will come out and compete for the black vote. the way republicans, the gop, deals with black voters is two things. one is they are trying to appeal to moderate white swing voters and make them seem as if they are more moderate than they are. i think that is one way in which they handle black voters. the other way it is i think they're basically trying to demoralize black voters and keep them away from the polls as the congress woman seem to indicate when she was talking about concerns of voter fraud. my thing is i do not see the gop making any really concerted effort to compete for the black vote. >> it is going to be tough. one because there is an african american and the white house. that does not guaranteed that the black vote will go out
again and 2012, but you are looking at a party -- black voters are purse readable -- are persuadable, but when you start looking down the list of other issues, you get really uncomfortable that is why i think the cell that the american -- the cell that the democratic party has is a whole other list of issues behind that black voters generally cannot get behind support. >> [inaudible] >> there are people out there the party that do want to reach out to african-american voters, but the problem is the base could not care less. you need the base to get elected. >> the reason why i believe it is there -- any republican
strategists to speak to off- camera will tell you they're recognized in order for the party to be competitive, they have to do better with minority votes. do they want all african american voters? no, because that scares away some of the other boats they have to get also. look at what president bush was doing and 2004. they go after churchgoers, upper african-american incomes. with barack obama, it is tough because he's such an icon. it will be hard to pull people away and say you voted against martin luther king? [laughter] there is a question there i think for republican voters. we cannot have this discussion about republican and minority voting intentions without talking about latinos. that is the growth market for
both parties when they look at the electorate. latinos are a growing as a percentage of the american electorate population. they are also are much more swing voters. for many of them better catholic come a bit are much more of line with the issues. the fundamental issue of every election is about trust. people do not trust you ultimately have their best interest at heart, they will not vote for you. even though you may take off 15 issues that make sense, the end of the day it does not matter you are ok with other issues. >> i want to raise a question about the latino vote and being seen as more of a swing vote. does that hurt african-americans because we're still seen as being in the pockets of the democratic party? take away whether or not it is good or bad for republicans, but what about african americans as a political entity?
would it not be better if we felt we had to be more quited then we are now? >> sure, it would be nice to feel where corte hit. -- feel more courted. in fact, you are starting to see efforts by some african american leaders, al sharpton is a key one that has gone to ground to arizona and done marches and went to pr, that we have to bridge these issues so you cannot drive a wedge between the community to pick them against each other. that is really going to be the challenge. >> i also think that yes, the latino vote has been the swing vote compared to the african american vote, but 60 percent of latinos voted for african --
voted for barack obama's. when you look at trends over time, what you see is the republican party has been garnering a smaller share of the latino vote in the past five election cycles. they have a real problem with latinos because of their stance on immigration. unless they flip the start some kind of way, it seems my stand is the trend looking forward will be that perhaps the latino vote becomes increasingly democratic. people have said that over time. it slips back and forth. certainly at this point i think immigration is a real problem for the gop if they want to attract latino votes, and latinos are the fastest-growing sector of the electorate. >> to go back to your point about african americans being persuaded to vote for democrats, i have heard a few interviews where people feel there needs to be a black agenda and they are
disappointed for not putting one out there. the other side of the coin is that if you improve the economy for everyone, that includes african americans and a rising tide lifts all boats. do you think being more forceful, saying this is our agenda to help the african- american community, would help the american community with african americans? where do fall on that one? >> you mean the president himself going out there saying this is my black agenda? [laughter] >> the administration. >> ok. even still. i know the questions that are out there, and i have pushed back hard on it. people saying, why does the president not have a black agenda and where is the job agenda? he is president of the united states. he is the leader of the entire country.
if you want him guaranteed to be a one-term president, you demand he puts forth tomorrow in a big ceremony, here is my black agenda. >> right after the hip-hop barbeque? [laughter] >> i think his message is the right one, that if you want african-americans, which is americans to be put back to work coming here is the agenda i am trying to do for all americans. health care, here is what i am trying to do for all americans, and who is will benefit. most likely people of color voted for the health-care law. i think they are demanding he has a defined the agenda and a doing him a disservice, because what will end up happening, and i got into this with a professor on his radio show that was saying i guarantee if he were to do that, someone will say he is
siding with the blacks, he is doing all of these things and pitting us against them and polarizing. that afternoon there was a republican congressman who accuse the president of doing exactly that on some bill i cannot even remember. i do not remember because the argument was so ludicrous. i am against that. very clear. >> i am with you, i think it is political suicide to step out with some sort of black agenda at this point or really at any point. i think it's goes against his persona and what he told us he was from the beginning. that speaks to the trust issue. >> the black agenda -- what is the black agenda? if we want to have that conversation, we could talk another hour about that. the difference today for
african-americans verses other communities is the black community is very clearly defined with hurdles they're trying to get dismantled. with african-americans, it is hard to find a legal wall that is standing away an african american progress. you have enforcement of laws, well problems, a job problems, health care. an actual law that targets african-americans and prevents them from bridges fading is not like it is for the latino community. for them, they can go in and make an argument about the ask, do not tell. it is a clear agenda item. i would challenge the president on this point. while i do not think it is smart for him to come out and say it, he does have to empower people that are outside of the administration to go out and talk about what kind -- what he
has been doing for african americans. you need to talk about the bill ion dollars he spent. he needs to talk about the fact that stimulus money actually kept a lot of black people employed. 20 percent of black people who work for state, federal, and local government. when you stop way offset state and local governments, you're keeping black people and jobs. someone has to come out and tell that story. i do agree it should not be him. >> the president and the administration has the problem you just talked about in a whole lot of communities. he has done a lot for the lgbt community that the community does not even know. not focusing on the little things he has done that might not mean a lot to
that has improved their lot is. >> who would've thought this president would have problems communicating the narrative. there are problems in the respect you just mentioned, in terms of explaining the debt ceiling, on some eight different issues. it seems to come up that i wonder where the connection is. what is the story that you will tell us to help us to understand and help us understand what you are going to do about it? >> i want to switch gears a little bit and go back to those on the right. you have touched on social issues. in the past, we have seen republicans and the gop try to use issues like terrorism and abortion to get votes of african-americans from democrats.
there was a panel on lgbt rights and the president attended. it seems the tide is changing within our community. these social issues that they typically used to divide us, are they a thing of the past? are they heading that way? in my naive? >> i don't think you are naive. i think the way events are working, the right does not seem to want to focus on those issues so much. in 2010, it was all about the economy and all about running against obama care and pushing the fact that the economy was in the toilet. once a lot of them got in, abortion came roaring back and other initiatives on gay issues.
the right is focused on the economy and downplaying social issues, the fact that there was this lgbt conference within the naacp, says to me that disparate communities of the democratic umbrella are recognizing the fact that if they are going to advance the cause they believe in, they must work together. african-americans and the gay community must work together. african-americans and latinos have to work together if they want to ensure that the gains that have been made continue. >> even on the right, some of these attacks on gays and lesbians don't have the same residence that they once had. younger evangelicals don't respond to these issues the same way as their parents and grandparents. it is losing some of the punch
on the right. the african-american community, the more people talk about fairness and mistreating people the way you'd want to be treated, is a pretty powerful argument. there are some arguments that turn african-americans all for more church going. when you have a conversation around fairness, people tend to react to that very positively and that is what has started to happen that often i think there is a psychology around state and local elections. >> there are ballot initiatives that is a different psychology than the psychology of presidential elections. i tend to think that many african-american voters are very forgiving of their elected officials. i don't think those issues will stand in the way of them voting for president obama. you also have to say that he has not really delivered fully for those communities. in terms of gay rights and don't ask, don't tell, he has not really done everything that many
gay-rights activists want him to do. he has not delivered on immigration reform and if he does so, it will not be until after this election. some of those wedge issues will be set back for a while. it may be a couple of years. the difference between how presidential elections work versus the state and local battles you get on initiatives and voting. >> the other part of the elections that is constantly true and this is president obama's biggest card in this election is who the republican is. in every election, it takes a horse to beat a horse. if you don't have a thoroughbred coming out of the republican stable, it will be tougher for them to take on such a good campaigner as president obama. we are judging the president now against the party --
>> and there is no thoroughbred in this table on the republican side, is there? >> i don't see one. it will be very hard to see how this works out. right now, we are comparing barack obama purses our ideal of what progress of democratic liberal president we would like to see an office. at some point, you'll have to compare him versus mitt romney or sarah palin or michelle bachmann or rick perry. one of those people be the other person and that is a very different conversation. >> that's true. let's talk about something we were discussing in the green room and that is racism. it is hard to have a conversation about the african- american vote without bring this up. in 2008, is a heated rhetoric on the campaign trail and you have
seen some since the present has been in office. in this post-racial society we are in [air-quotes] i feel is a conversation that many people are not comfortable having. i think the majority of people who disagree with the president disapprove within strictly on policy. think we can say for sure that there are not people out there who disagree with him because of the color of his skin or that because he has such a wide popularity among african americans. i worry about what rhetoric is coming in 2012. if the past couple years is any indication, there could be stuff happening in the state's underground that could be ugly. let me get your thoughts on that.
>> i have been afraid of 2012 since 2008 finish. bed. we are going to see really nasty images. we will hear some nasty rhetoric. it may not be from the gop or the candidates but they have lots of supporters. last week, i wrote a blog post about how i wanted the president to get out there and start doing things that would make the folks and the other end of pennsylvania avenue start to fear him in the sense that he is president of the united states and he is willing to go to the mat for what he believes in. even if he loses.
which i think is coming. the e-mails that i got back from the tea party -- because they had line was "it is time for the tea party to fear the president there." i got this one e-mail from someone and a lot of the e-mails i get from tea party folks, but not all of them, they are racially tainted. this one went flat out there. it said you and your n-word president are going down. no one will come out and say it. i think we are going to see and hear things that will make us wonder what kind of country we are in.
>> is the honest on the administration to speak to that? -- is the onus on the administration to speak to that? >> i don't think they would touch that. there are people watching and waiting for this to happen. people need to jump out and push back on that. the congressman who use is a certain phrase, people have to push back on that. got your firstly -- your first racially tense hate mail. -- racially-tinge hate mail. i got a letter from a guy filled with all that. >> you got one, too? >> that issue was alive in 2008 and will be alive again in 2012.
in a big way. there are many people don't vote for democrats already. lyndon johnson signed the rights bills. there are many people left the democratic party precisely on that issue. when president clinton was in office, they treated him badly over the issue wite. with kabbalah being an african- american level, the intensity level -- with obama being an african-american, the intensity level will be higher. >> it is worth -- worse -- is worth mentioning the existential issue. we are not in a post-racial era. we are in an era of unprecedented uncertainty about what race really is. i think the president embodies that. he is a black american.
he celebrates his immigrant heritage. his father is from kenya and his mother is from kansas. he is multiracial and there's a lot going on there. michelle has the blood of slave owners. we are wrangling with these issues. i think it is worth making that distinction and understanding or some of the post-racial rhetoric comes from is deep- seated questions about what race is in this country. >> that is a good point. i want to get into the demographic discussion a little bit. the president is by racial and we have more people who identify as biracial. you have this influx of immigrants coming from the caribbean like my parents and
from africa. do you see any differences among the voting patterns? do they view policy and politics and sell rights differently than the rest of the population at large? >> the black immigrant population is relatively small. 95% of all black americans in the united states are native- born. 5% are foreign-born. you have to do extensive over- sampling how these people are voting. i don't know the answer from a data perspective. my sense is that there's a real embrace of president obama from black immigrants as their own as well. he taps into so many of these different communities. he tells us that he embraces immigrant communities and he says he himself as a product of that.
he is. toon't really anticipate much wavering from emigrant black american communities on president obama in this upcoming election. >> i only have an anecdotal survey. judging by the taxi drivers and other people on the street who are educated immigrants africans, they are 100% behind barack obama. >> that is very scientific. >> exactly. >> one of my friends wrote a book called "whistling past the dixie." with writing a book called "whistling through dixie ."
i wonder if you feel like maybe in the future that places who have been read for so long can turn purple and not just because of african-americans but because of building coalitions with the building latino populations in the southern states? >> i think as possible. about a place like virginia. the demographics of virginia have changed and so much of how we understand what happened in virginia in 2008 has to do with changing demographics. when you think about this, i think it will take a lot of time for states like georgia to somehow become a democratic state. i think you have to keep in mind that the number of residents is not the same thing as a number of voters. the undocumented population, if you talk about blacks and latinos coalescing in a state like georgia, the new immigrant destinations are places where
the proportion of latinos in those places are much higher in undocumented proportions than in longstanding latino communities like los angeles. >> we are seeing this growth of population in places like north carolina. there might be 140,000 african- americans more than we had before the 2000 election. if you talk to people in politics, they say look at north carolina and virginia and they say the numbers are better. if you had a state like georgia -- president obama lost georgia by 5% without spending much money there. if the numbers change enough, we cannot take out of the coalition moderate whites.
, particularly white women like in charlotte, north carolina. maybe atlanta which has a huge economic output. it does not mean that it will turn this time. when you look at the latino vote in texas or arizona without john mccain and the electorate and you've got latinos there, there are states that are out there which are further out there but back and certainly make republicans have to spend money if they want to compete. >> a lot of these things we are talking about, these are changes that will not happen in one year or two years. whether people are wildly enthusiastic for present obama and thought he would change the
world in 100 days, many people need to realize that a lot of the changes he was talking about the need to happen in this country and that need to happen through dixie to turn georgia purple and keep north carolina and virginia blue, it will take more than a few election cycles. far too many people have a short-term horizon when they care about issues that require longer-term horizons. >> that is a great point. please join me in thanking our panelists for a great discussion [applause] you know the drill. please wait for a microphone and please stand and state your name and organization. and the back, your woman -- the woman in white. >> i represent myself today.
you hear a lot of friction between we are so disappointed about what he has not achieved. we had all these high hopes. we say he has not stood up the factnough cversu versus that he has been smacked upside the head since day one. please comment about that. he is not running this country by himself and they forget that he is up to his ears in alligators. some people in the community feel strongly and say give him a break. >> i will try to be brief. the big problem that the president has his whatever -- every candidate has and that is the difference between campaigning and all the things you say on a campaign and all the things you promise i
campaign and then if you're successful and you win, you actually get in the door and you get to look it in box and suddenly, campaign promises smack up against a government. you suddenly realize that what i said as a candidate by myself and my team telling me that we came up with this policy ideas, you suddenly realize that if i am going to do this, i have to deal with that person, that group and suddenly, it is not the campaign anymore. you are governing. whatever you promised 100%, maybe you can get 70%. people get angry about that. it is understandable but i think there for too many people -- a focus this on supporters of the president or disillusioned -- they don't really appreciate that fact. he has gone in and discovered
that things are a whole lot more work than anyone could possibly imagine and not cutting them a little bit of slack because he has taken three weeks, three years longer than you thought he would to address an issue or take a position. far too many people focused too much time on the marquee issues and the marquee concerns. and don't take the time to look at what he is really doing, meaning his administration. what are they doing? if you go deep in many areas, you will find things that you had no idea the administration was doing but it helps a lot of people. the money that the president sent to historical black colleges is one. i can't remember the last time i saw a story about it.
maybe the day was announced by i defy you to ask someone what the administration has done for historical black colleges. >> closed mounts don't get fat and squeaky wheels get oil. ed. people want policy positions have to put for them and understand when it comes time to let somebody, you have a choice between two individuals and which one will help me achieve my goal the most. cut him a little slack but not too much. >> it will be easier when he has an opponent that is named. >> it is easier for the electorate to make decisions but i think the pressure on him has got to stay on to make sure they know that people care about the issues. >> this german right here in the
green. >> -george walker. my question was more to something you said about what he cannot say. when it comes to race, he will not be able to touch this. what can he touched? what can he say? how do you respond to that? i have my opinions about what he should say. i am curious about what he can say. >> i think he can always talk aspirational it. everybody in america -- nobody in america because it does anybody else from wanting to participate more in america or what to get more out of america. have a home, have a job, put your kids and a better school
and the billions of dollars put into education. those things are things that i think we can always talk about. we did not elect a civil rights leader to be president. we elected a politician. when it comes to issue of race, you can always talk aspiration in without getting yourself into much trouble. >> the gentleman in the back there. >> my name is ed kirkman. i am really concerned about this effort in the states to suppress the vote. i was an undergrad during the 2008 election our remembered being inspired by barack obama. i remember seeing mr. simmons on
cnn. how does someone like myself because i was inspired -- i came to washington because i was inspired into public service. i want to serve a nonprofit. contractioneing a in our society with the federal government cutting back on spending and things like that. how do we as young people get our voice heard? the vote is now being suppressed. the voter i.d. laws will affect our portion of the electorate disproportionately. how do we get the votes back. and get our voice heard in 2012? the red curtain that swept across the nation in 2010 -- how we get that back? >> i wonder if i have an answer.
that is a tough question. i don't know. >> i think about how you motivate people. ultimately, we as voters have to be adults about this. there are things we would like to have but we will not always get everything we would like to have. for people who actually care about fashion and supporting obama, you have to say that things are tough. having an election is part of people have to show back up and participate and continued to push. it is hard for people -- i grew up -- i grew up in detroit to go back home where there are people out of work. there are houses that have been leveled from foreclosure and people who have left her.
. there's so much economic devastation it is hard to have that conversation. what is the alternative? the alternative is that we don't do anything. i'm an optimist. i think you have to get up in the morning and do something. >> voting is the franchise that people fought and died for the right to vote. you being a young person, young vote. by and large don't because you came out to put this man in office was inspiring. in 2010, folks did not show up again.
voting is an activity. you have to keep going back to the polls even when the market person is not on the ballot. if there are people in the party you care about, you and your friends and your generation have to show up. that is the way you get your voice heard. that is the way you stay involved. it may seem like no one is paying attention because maybe they are not, they are. if you want to insure that the history that you made in 2008 continues, the enthusiasm you had them, you better carry it into 2012 for the disappointment you think you feel now, you really feel it. [laughter] we have time for one more question. this gentleman right here. >> i am a retired army
physician. being white, i claim sometimes that obama is irish american. you have the right to claim him as african-american and we are probably both right. i am very sensitive about people not voting. i'm in a generation that votes 100%. i have not missed a vote in 50 years i have been voting. is there any traction to be gotten from politicians shaming americans to vote? i feel strongly about that subject. my age in my generation feel strongly about that.
i think the people having these obstructions put in front of their voting have a responsibility to overcome those obstructions. get your id card and don't wait till next year and don't wait till some politician entices you to. it is your responsibility. is there any traction or m on i m -- or am i an old idealistic? >> your comments ring true. there is the story we can tell about what the voter does or doesn't do. in your words, get your lazy but off the couch. at the same time, there are structural issues we can take into account. same day voter registration, wide as voting day after the one day, why can't it be a couple of weeks? the internet voting, mail in
voting, why is that a problem? i can do all my banking transactions on the internet. but we cannot talk about voting. voter motivation is one aspect. it is worth looking at a broader an array of issues that are preventing or discouraging people from participation. >> there is a structural issue about young people voting that we have to it knowledge. even at the height of the vietnam war when 19-year olds were being carted off to southeast asia, the voting percentage was still pretty low. most people boats when they start to have children. most people vote when the start to own property. he starts to have an investment
in this society. you care about schools that your taxes go up and have a home you care about any neighborhood. you want certain things to happen and when you are younger, you are more transient and you are just starting out and focused on immediate concerns. you are a still a r leadingamen noodles twice a week. -- you are still eating ramen noodles twice a week. once you get over 30, if you have been voting you continue to vote. >> the message that you delivered is probably too blunt for president obama ord principal candidate to say -- or a principal candidate to said. your duty to vote is important. i was an adviser to michael bloomberg in his first campaign as mayor.
9/11 happened during that campaign. i think we took about a week off from electioneering. when people call during that time, michael told us and we felt it, he told people that no matter who you vote for, on the revised primary day, it is your duty. you must go out and vote. both for us or vote for the other guy, just show up at the polls. that has to be the message going forward. i am serious when i say that you should go and be a surrogate. this is such a strong message and the way you delivered it many more people need to hear it. >> i agree. thank you, audience, for speaking with our panel. [applause] thank you very much. it was a great conversation and please visit our website, american progress.org.
>> if you miss any of the discussion on the 2012 african- american vote, you can see it in its entirety on our website c- span.org,. this is a live picture of the white house meyer president obama will make a statement on the economy and reaction to the drop in the stock market today. there was the nation's credit downgrade that happen friday in reaction has been - 3 the market was down about 300 points. it was about 380 points in the red at 1.3 there is about 2.5 hours left of trading today. the president may touch on the debts of 20 -- 32 -- 22 u.s. seals. a helicopter was shot down in afghanistan very the pentagon says the attack was a tragic loss but does not single verizon taliban strength.
this should be seen as a single combat incident and not a watershed moment in escalating war. the president is expected to speak on that and a credit downgrade today. we expect that to happen in a moment. right now, a discussion on the credit downgrade from two "washington journal days." continues. host: robin harding is u.s. economics editor at "the financial times." good morning. guest: good morning. host: you have a story in today's paper looking at the decision of the s&p to downgrade the u.s. credit rating, but there's a complication because the white house has accused it of making a $2 trillion mistake. how did this happen? guest: this is a remarkable story. on friday, s&p came to the treasury and said they were going to do this downgrade. the treasury economist looked at
this and said we think there was an error in your numbers. s&p agreed that the numbers were not the most appropriate ones to use. the administration uses harsher terms than that. they decided to go through with the downgrade anyway. what's really hard is to actually say how substantial it is. was it really important. looking at the s&p rating criteria, it seems like it would potentially affect a rating decision. on the other hand, the way the markets are responding, and the with the people in the markets are responding, is they say they've known the fiscal problem has been going on for years. essentially, s&p's decision was dysfunctional politics in washington, as opposed to the deficit numbers. they are kind of trucking this off. host: how significant is this? we heard a lot on the talk shows
yesterday. how significant is it in terms of the u.s. reliability and what it means for investors? guest: it is a washington story and it's a short-term story. an s&p downgrade does not change anything about the creditworthiness of the u.s. it does not change the size of the deficit or the debt. it is embarrassing for s&p, i think, but i also think it will be forgotten within a few days. host: this is from "the financial times" front page. this is also really affecting the markets. walk us through what is going on in the spanish and the italian markets. guest: i know it sounds obscure, but this is the story that has out censored everything that's going on at the moment, the steady deterioration of the european powerful -- european
peripheral countries. we're going on to some big countries, spain and italy. the difference is -- with ireland and greece, you can bail them out. if spain gets in trouble in markets refuse to lend to them, that's hard to fix. that's hundreds of billions of euros per year in financing needs. that's why there's so much turmoil as a result of this problem. what has happened over the weekend is that the very short market moves have forced the ecb to change its policy. essentially, the ecb has said it would buy italian and spanish debt and that's what it has done in the markets this morning. we have seen the yields in the italian and spanish that come down. the question, it will that be enough to restore market confidence and persuade private investors that they want to lend money to spain and italy?
host: the ecb is the european central bank. guest: yes. host: how do other countries measure up as far as s&p ratings? i wanted to look at this in "the wall street journal." they compare the ratings. in our category now, belgium, new zealand. is it so much the rating or is it more the change of a rating that is significant? guest: that's a very good question and it's another thing that the treasury and the administration were pretty upset about over the weekend. france, which has almost the same size as us -- was going on? i think the answer is -- they have a set of very fixed criteria. if you happen to fall on one side of the dividing line, then you get that rating.
kind of understand that. they do not really looks so closely. the difference between aaa and aaa plus is very small in their minds. the question is, the potential of a downgrade for france, as well. host: how much of a severe impact would that have? guest: the central thing to understand about economic stories at the moment is is the keenness of impact, hit after hit. by themselves, neither of those things would be a big deal. all these things together in a short amount of time have the potential to shake people's confidence and have a knock-
>> we know go live to the white house. president obama is set to make a statement on the credit downgrade. >> we are waiting for the president to discuss the economy, the nation's credit downgrade, as the stock market opened this morning and went into the red. at one point, it was trading 380 points and of bread and this was a reflection of the downgrade of the nation's credit by the securities -- the s&p on friday. we expect the president to
address that and also the debts of the navy seals who died in afghanistan over the weekend, 22 navy seals were killed when their helicopter was shot down by a taliban rocket-propelled grenade saturday. h f gansler killed and 30 troops in all when that helicopter was shot down. the president is expected any moment and after he speaks, we'll take your phone calls. this is live coverage on c-span. [no audio]
[no audio] [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. on friday, we learned that the united states received a downgrade by one of the credit rating agencies. it is not so much because they doubt our ability to pay our debt if we make good decisions but because after witnessing a month of wrangling over raising the debt ceiling, they gathered our political system was reluctant to act. the markets continue to believe our credit status is aaa. warren buffett knows a thing or two about investments says that if there were a quadruple a rating, he would give united states that. i am most of the world's investors agree. that does not mean we don't have a problem. we did not need a rating agency to tell us we need a balance,
long-term approach to deficit reduction. that was true last week. that was true last year. that was true the day i took office. we did not need a rating agency to tell us that the gridlock in washington over the last several months has not been constructive, to say the least. we knew from the outset that a prolonged debate over the debt ceiling, a debate where the threat of default was used as a bargaining chip could do enormous damage to our economy and the world. that threat came after a string of economic disruptions in europe, japan, and the middle east has now roiled the market and dampened consumer confidence and slowed the recovery. all this is a legitimate source of concern. here is the good news -- our problems are eminently solvable. we know what we have to do to solve them. with respect to debt, our
problem is not confident our credit. markets continued to reaffirm our credit as among the world's safest. our challenge is the need to tackle our deficits over the long term. last week, we reached an agreement that will make a start cuts in defense and domestic spending. there is not much further we can cut in either of those categories. what we need to do is combine those spending cuts with two additional steps -- tax reform that will ask those who can afford to pay their fair share and modest adjustments to health care programs like medicare. making these reforms does not require any radical steps. it requires common sense and compromise. there are plenty of good ideas about how to achieve long-term
deficit reduction that does not hamper economic growth right now. republicans and democrats on the bipartisan fiscal commission put forth good proposals. republicans and democrats in the senate gang of six came up with the proposal. john boehner and i came up with some good proposals when he came close to agreeing on a grand bargain. it is not a lack of plans or policies that is the problem. it is the lack of political will in washington. it is the insistence of drawing lines in the sand. it is a refusal to put what is best for the country ahead of self-interest or party or ideology. that is what we need to change. i realize that after what we just went through, there is some skepticism that republicans and democrats on the so-called super committee that has been set up will be able to reach a
compromise. my hope is that the news from abroad will give us a renewed sense of urgency. i intend to present my own recommendations over the coming weeks on how we should proceed. that committee will have this administration's full cooperation. i assure you, we will stay on until we get the job done. of course, as worrisome as the issues of debt and deficits may be, the most immediate concern of most americans and of concern to the marketplace as well, is the issue of jobs. and the slow pace of recovery coming out of the worst recession in our lifetimes. the good news here is that by coming together to deal with the long-term debt to challenge, we would have more room to implement key proposals that could get the economy to grow faster.
specifically, we should expend a payroll tax cut as soon as possible so that workers have more money in their paychecks next year and businesses have more customers next year. we should continue to make sure that if you are one of the millions of americans who is out there looking for a job that you can get the unemployment insurance your tax dollars contributed to. that will also put money in people's pockets and more customers in stores. if congress fails to an extent the payroll tax, and the unemployment insurance benefits, it could mean 1 million fewer jobs and zero 0.5% less growth. we can do this immediately. this is something we can do as soon as congress gets back. we should also help companies that want to repair our roads and built -- and bridges and airports.
this is of thousands of construction workers can get a paycheck that will help support our economic growth. these are democratic proposals. these are big government proposals. these are ideas that traditional republicans have agreed to countless times in the past. there is no reason we should not act on them now. none. i know you're going for a tough time right now. we have been going through tough times for the last 2.5 years. many people are worried about the future. i also know there will always be economic factors we can't control. , earthquakes, spikes and low prices, slowdowns in other parts of the world. how we respond to those factors is entirely up to us. markets will rise and fall but this is the united states of america. no matter what some agency may say, we have always been and
always will be a triple a country. for all the challenges we face, we continuewe continue to have t universities in the most productive workers, and the most innovative companies and the most adventurous entrepreneurs on earth. we have always had the will to act, the determination to shape our future. the willingness in our democracy to work out our differences, and to move forward for the next generation. we will have to summon this. today. the american people have been through so much for the last few years, dealing with the worst recession, the biggest financial crisis since the 1930's. they have done this with grace.
they are working so hard to raise their families and all that we ask is that we worked just as hard to make their lives easier. and ultimately, the reason i am is so hopeful about the future, and the reason that i think in the united states of america, is because of the american people. they are willing to shoulder the burden is that we face as one nation. and there is one last thing. there is nobody who embodies the qualities that i mentioned more than the men and women of the united states armed forces. this weekend, we lost 30 of them. this is during the plane crash in afghanistan. this is a reminder of the risks that our men and women take every day.
day after day, night after night, when they carry out these missions in the face of enemy fire. and in this mission as in so many others, they were joined by afghan soldiers who also lost their lives as well. i have spoken to the generals in the field and president karzai, and we will continue the work of transitioning to a strong government to make certain that this is not a safe haven to terrorists. we will press on and we will succeed. and it is also time to reflect on those that we lost. as well as their families. these men and women put their lives on the line, for what we value together as a nation. their backgrounds and their beliefs reflect a rich diversity of america.
no matter what differences they may have as individuals, they served the nation as a team, and they meet their responsibilities together. and some of them, like the 30 americans lost this weekend, gave their lives for this country. the responsibility is to make certain that there commitment and their courage and their sense of common purpose -- thank you very much. >> did thet s and s and p oversp its bounds? >> that was obama speaking about the economy, as the credit rating dropped and the afghanistan war and the loss of 20 plus soldiers. we are live here at c-span and want your reaction about what
the president had to say. we provided the phone lines. by political affiliation. when the president started speaking, the dow jones market was down 387 points, and when he finished, this was down 428 points. he called for tax reform, and they increased taxes on the wealthy with modest adjustments to entitlements and he recommended the payroll tax cuts be extended along with unemployment insurance. he also spoke about the joint congressional committee on deficit reduction, which needs to be named by august 16. and then they have until october to make recommendations with
what they see with deficit reduction. by november 24, they are required to report findings, and then congress has to vote up or down, and cannot amend with the joint committee comes out with. they will be looking for 60 members, or 12 members to be appointed. your reaction to president obama. a democrat from san diego. >> first, i want to say that i support the president and his attempts to get things finished in this country, but we know that the opposition is against him, and my question is, why would the republicans care about the credit rating of the united states when they are against president obama, and this is then the focus on the credit
rating, it would not make sense to move forward on anything the country has to do until they are -- he is out of office. and the joint committee that is coming out, the republicans have taken a stand on what they will not do opposed to what they will do. so why do we keep continuing to act like this is politics as usual, when for the first time in american history, we know why the republicans are acting and performing with such hatred, the way that they are. >> james on the independent line. >> thank you very much. there is a war that is going on, the very rich against the american people. in germany, they do not have republicans as the mouthpiece of the super rich. they keep this rating because they are taxing the corporations
for the super rich. my plant was shut down in 2008 and my health care went up 40%. inflation was 40%, nationally. the american people are losing and the super rich do not have a recession or a depression that is going on. >> craig, on the democrats line. >> thank you. his speech did not make big waves, i do not think. he was saying to the congress, stop playing games, and start putting america first. i am not saying that their approval rating is at all -- an all-time low, and this is very
abysmal, with all of his problems, he is around 50%. by next summer, he will have a billion dollars to go against romney or perry, to make his case that the economy should be better, -- >> we will leave it right there. >> the dow jones is down 460 points, and from an article in the wall street journal, wall street is pondering its next move. the big problem for the markets is that they seem to depend on government support. low interest rates helped with the market trouble in the from the nextw, call, this is from albany new york. this is tracie on the republican line.
>> i have some very strong views regarding the president and his financial policies, but i would like to talk about his comment about increasing taxes on the wealthy. i had an idea over the weekend. how about we appeal to the wealthy to bring manufacturing and industry back to the united states instead of donating their money or giving their money to other nations? they could be the patriotic wealthy, they can invest in the united states, bringing back the factories and the jobs, bringing us back to the proud nation that we once were. >> miami beach? >> this is the new america. i reacted to the speech of the president very firmly, from the point of view that the markets
are showing the same old story. the communists and the capitalists. commonness will be asking for money for people and markets will be retreating. it is time for us to take a stand. the united states is the greatest country in the world. americans are all self- sufficient. we need only one pre-emptive thing, and we will make everything work. the democrats, with their combat -- communist ideas, they will retreat from the social programs, which we never needed in the united states. we are the same, the people of the united states. and we can manage ourselves. >> another article in the wall street journal. the united states remains the gold standard.
this is the first time in modern u.s. history and it may lead to selling in treasury bonds for those required to hold only triple-a-rated assets. because moody's affirmed the aaa rating, the short selling is expected to be limited and may be offset by safe havens. only one rating agency downgraded the united states, and this was standard and poor's. martha, you are on c-span. >> i am reeling about patriotic taxpayers. i don't think we jsut -- fufill our obligations for the taxpayer of this country by paying taxes. also, i did not elect
republicans and i did vote for republicans to take a pledge because they would not compromise, in any way, with the cup -- with the opponents. you have to take me off of this. whatever we may dream that we are accomplishing in afghanistan, it is not worth the death of 30 navy seals. and the expenditures that we have had for eight years, or nine years in afghanistan, these are wrecking the economy and i want to get out of afghanistan. and if they want to fight themselves, we should let them. >> i have a couple of questions i would like to ask. when they were talking about democrats and republicans, and
when they were doing their negotiations with the president, everything was going well. the tea party came in and told the republicans that this is how they feel, and that there were the ones in control and they want to run everything. that is how i feel about this. the other part is i am on social security. i had major back surgery and we have not seen arrays, nothing, but the rich still keep getting richer, and we still keep getting the bottom line. we're at the bottom of the poll for just about everything in america. we have to bring these factories back and give people jobs, that really need those jobs. >> what did you think about the call from the president for modest adjustments to
entitlements? >> honestly, i really do not have an answer for this. i never really studied this so i really do not know how this would work. >> thanks for calling in this afternoon. portland, keith, republican. >> i just came in for the last few moments of his address, but i do have a couple of things to say. i am republican affiliated the i am little upset. they are giving all these benefits to the corporate rich, like oil companies that make millions of dollars in profits with no taxes and they say that the companies, these rich people are creating jobs, but the jobs they're creating overseas, what can they do for us? it is not fair to put all of the tax burden on the backs of the people that are not making much
money in the first place. everyone is going to have to tighten their belts to get out of this recession including the corporate rich. i am a little bit upset right now. i cannot believe they let this budget debate go so far, almost to the edge of a disaster, and that is really all that i have to say. >> we will take our last call from john in albuquerque. >> we have to support the troops, but war is not the answer. you have to start coming together and stop segregating ourselves as a nation and we have to come together like the people in the 1960's. >> thank you to everyone who called in to this open phone segment. tomorrow on "washington journal," this will continue.
>> i am not for changing the system just for voter turnout, which may approximate -- approximate what they have in australia. voter turnout does not mean anything when it comes to the democracy. the most vicious dictatorships in the world had voter turnouts of 99%. >> of voting is a responsible act, and for whatever reason, i am and informed, i have not had the time. we make a decision that his life and death for many people. >> today and tomorrow, ralph nader and the center for responsive law host a series of debates looking at controversial topics. on monday, the pros and cons of mandatory voting, and the competitive enterprise institute. professors from georgetown and the university of massachusetts
on taxing stocks rates and currencies. this is at 6:00 eastern. primetime tonight on c-span, a look at the operation to capture or kill osama bin laden, and a man who trained the navy seals to do this. the foreignewed by correspondent, tonight at 8:00 eastern. republican presidential candidates are stopping by the iowa state fair. e comments by romney and bachmman, then -- antorum talked about his
opposition to same-sex marriage in des moine, iowa. ed about an lastaed hour. >> we are with the "des moines editorial board," meeting with rick santorum. we will keep this very informal with the meeting, a combination of writers and editorial writers, and a couple of columnists. and after we kick things off, it will be kind of a free-for-all, a very informal conversation. and how much time have you got? i respect this. and we will keep at that. and let me fire off the first question. tell me, the condition of the country right now, why in the
world would you want to be president? >> i announced for president back in june, in somerset county. this is because very symbolic. this is a symbol of where the fight against extremist threats, and those who want to rob us of our freedom, from an external force, this battle was just engaged. and that is where my father came with this country, and my grandfather came from lithuanians, italy. this was the children's life and the future, and he came to somerset so he would dig coal.
there was a town called carpenters park, and this was next to the mind. they used these coupons, and we figured out that this was a dead end and we were taking less money for the cash. the long story short, he ended up working in the mind, to provide of a life for my dad, who came when he was of age. and this was a personal symbol of how america creates the opportunities, and how they created this opportunity for me. i felt like one of the responsibilities that you have, to be in a position that will serve the country when you think your country is in need of this service.
and i know that this may be on the outside looking into this thing, why someone in my situation, politically and personally, doing this. with seven children, their art -- there is a lot going on in your life. you lost your last political race so why do you think that you can make a difference. i have been doing a lot of media and such, with a lot of encouragement, and i decided that the message was going to be a little bit different than everyone else, and i could be part of the process that may bring us a new leader in this country and this is something that is absolutely necessary for the future of the country. >> how was this different than the others? >> this is a message for any combination of things.
we have to look at things differently than most of the people in the right. i see these issues as being integrated. i talked about how the country is founded on moral principles, with the foundational element of the society, and we cannot have a strong economy with the economy and things to do. the first economy is the family. and i understand that the first hospital in the first school, the first church, this was all in the family. without a strong and stable family we will not have a strong economy. when families are broken they do not do as well, economically. the stronger the family unit, the stronger the bond of the
marriage in the family. this is not just from the standpoint of the economy but the country as a moral enterprise. we have to be a country of strong moral character. and a country that defines life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the pursuit of pleasure -- we will not be a country much longer. this is not what you want to do. what you are called to do, we will be constrained by a change from within, not change from without. you cannot have limited government and people are not dealing with this but the short term pleasures. the last character that we have, the more government that we will have. and if you want any doubt of that, look at the middle east, where people do not behave as
they ought to. you will see a poor economy, and people not want to see this as the future of the country. this is on the policy side. on the other side, i look at the people who will be in the race and i feel like i bring something to the table, of electoral success, in areas of the country where we are going to win this election. we will have to be successful. i was elected in pennsylvania in heavily democratic districts, and i will say that the state of pennsylvania is difficult to win. people need to get into the race, but at this time, the people who will be at the debate on thursday night, nobody else has defeated a democratic incumbent, but i was matched up
against one, and another one got out of the race before the final period i got rid of him, and he retired instead of running against me, because i think that he knew he could not defeat me. i ran against james carvel, running that campaign. we have not won the set of pennsylvania since 1988. i have not been anything of note in pennsylvania in six years, and it is not like we did a lot of attention. the only person in this race -- everyone is in the race or prospective, has had the name identification increase except for me. and you wonder why the national media is not talking about me when they are talking about jon huntsman, he gets lots of attention.
but nobody wants to pay any attention to me. this does not bother me. there is probably a benefit to this. they may not say a lot of nice things about me. but we are going out and working hard, and i think we have a track record to show that we have the potential for electoral success, with conservatives who are the vast majority of people in the republican primaries, and they see someone who, over the course of my political career, has been a fighter for conservative principles, and i think this is something different. i think can brown was out in denver last week, who was a conservative before was cool to be a conservative, and you can trust me because i have done this representing a state like pennsylvania.
this is a little different than other people in the race. >> even if they share your basic view that the family unit and the strength of this is very important, and this should be intact and moral, what role does the president of the united states have to play in this? >> can you be more specific about the relationship between the family unit -- >> the president is concerned about the health of the country. >> and how would you strengthen the family unit as the president? >> i would support the federal marriage amendment, and i would actually be active as i was here, in making certain that the states did not create a situation that was untenable in the long term, having 50 different -- marriage is a foundational element of society. this is unsustainable. i am somebody who would go out,
into the streets to talk about this. with the states that voted for the issue of marriage, there have been 31 issues of marriage and 31 times, marriage has sustained. and this was not the case when the debate began. people naturally want to be very tolerant. if people want to do this, they will want to do this until they realize that this affects the family, and this affects your children, and what they are taught and to teaches them. this has a profound impact on you. this is an effect on everyone's marriage, and if you look at the impact on the family itself, and the institution of marriage, marriage existed before there
was a government. that is like saying this glass of water is a glass of beer. this is a glass of water. water is what this. you can try to say that you will make this something else. marriage is an essential element, with the recognition of the bond between a man and woman, for the purpose of helping both men and women. this is a complementary role. in nature as well as elsewhere, to make an opportunity for the best situation for children to live, in the family. this is an intrinsic part of society. this is a good thing, but we do not celebrate this and say that we will give special relationships because this is not as valuable as my
relationship with my wife. and from our own relationships and what this does with our lives. this is fundamental, not for two people who love each other. this is important and find but does not have the values of society and should not be recognized this way. you belittle the other. you cannot recognize one that has intrinsic less value than the other and called it the same without the body with the other. when you see that happen, what happened with marriage -- you have seen it in europe and other places. fewer people get married. they get married later. they have children out of wedlock. marriage becomes a more casual relationship. because these other relationships that are not built on the natural unitive and procreative elements of what marriage is about, they are not as stable over time. in fact, they claim that.
we are changing the nature of marriage. beyond that, the family, what it does for religion. if a homosexual marriage, or other types of marriage is equivalent to a traditional marriage, we would say to folks -- marriage counselors. if you do not counsel for same- sex marriages, you are a bigot. we have seen this with other types of things. if you do not do what the state will do, you are going to lose your license. you will lose your ability to practice medicine. and this is going to be even worse because this is considered a bigoted activity now. we cannot give licenses to people who do not do what the state says is good and just.
in boston, the catholic church did not want to do gay adoption, so they lost their ability to do adoptions. now we have created a super rite. we have religious liberties, but the courts have created a super rite that is above the constitution, and that is sexual liberty. that is a destructive element of this debate. that is not talked about, but guess what? when we have these debates in these states, people talk about it. people should be able to live the life they want to live. i have no problem with that. but that is not the debate. the debate is changing the law that impacts everyone else. that is a public policy issue. it is not against anybody. it is an issue about public policy and the impact of that policy on family, faith, and education. of course, we see homosexual as
normal. now we are seeing that sort of thing being taught to young children. i do not think parents consider that good, nor do i find it to be helpful for children, at a time when sexual confusion can be accelerated by the state. we are talking about profound consequences. how does my marriage affect you? it affects it profoundly. when we have that discussion, the american people say, you are allowed to live the life you want to live, but do not try to reporter society in a way that will undermine the structures of faith, education, family. >> you had said something about preschools, education in general, usurping the role of family.
could you expand on what you meant by that? >> who is responsible for educating your children? you are, parents. the government is there to help you do what is your responsibility. some have been convinced that it is government policy role to educate your children. there are many in government who believe it is their role to educate children. that is a flawed approach. parents should have the responsibility, and therefore, should have the right to structure the environmental -- educational environment, in a way that is consistent with what they believe is in the best interest of their children. why? because they know their children better than the state does. but that is not how the state system operates. you and your kids off and we tell you what is best for your
kids. if they cause us a lot of problems -- and this is not in the best school districts. a lot of school districts do that. when the government from the top is dictating what i education policies should be, how we are going to structure the classroom, you have less control and less individual catering to the children, and as a result, poor education. you go into mcdonald's and you have one thing, a big mac or something else. that may not work for everyone. unless we change the dynamism of the education system and make it focused around the consumer. >> what is the federal role in education? >> it would be incredibly limited. i do not make the mistake that george bush had that i am the governor of the country. i do not have their
responsibility to reorder the education system. it is our job to make clear what the education system should look like, which i have just done. >> so is there a role for things like no child left behind, raced to the top? what would you do -- >> i would do with education what i think we should do with a lot of other programs. return them to the states and more local areas. if we found anything out from the town left behind, which i voted for, because i thought we needed a national test to see how we were doing. it was clear to me that we were not doing well. there was some disagreement among the education world as to how well we were actually performing. i thought having a standardized test to give us an idea would be a good idea. i was not for all the other things, the levers to move
states and local districts to do what we wanted them to do. in retrospect, the testing part is fine. the other parts were negative. but i said i did not like it at the time. >> so would you get rid of it? >> yes, i do not think we need that sort of intervention. it is not working. the education system continues to decline. i believe we need a system that is much more dynamic in engaging parents and students. >> but it is up to the states to do that. it is not on your agenda. >> my agenda is to say what i am saying, give that our back to the states, encourage parents. i think one of the leaders of of thesibilities
leader of the country is to talk about things have that he believed need to be done. >> as health care one of those issues? how would you approach that one? >> the federal role, i would continue it with medicare. i believe medicaid should be sent back to the states. we should do with medicaid what we did with welfare. during the welfare reform debate, phil gramm and i introduced a bill to do exactly what to medicate what was being done to medicare, which is a form of per-capita block grant to the states. give them the flexibility to design their health care system, pushed it down to have the kind of solution that are closest to the people affected by those decisions. whether it is health care,
education, housing, food stamps, these programs do not need to be at the federal level. wheres not the 1950's states all over the map -- >> so with all those become block grants? >> they would not be the same structure, but yes, limited, capped, federal participation, and we would orient the programs back to the state level. >> is there any role for the government in health care? >> something i have said for a long time is we need to encourage a market in health care. we have a situation where i believe costs will be controlled in two ways. top-down or bottom-up. can we create a system -- i think we can -- to create a system that will help people better manage their healthcare?
one of the things that i advocated for when i was in congress in 1992, john kasich and i introduced the first medical savings bill. i have been an advocate of health savings accounts. it puts the consumer in charge of their health care. we have a false economy in health care. >> is that what your family has? what kind of insurance do you have? >> we have an insurance policy -- i got my policy through the ethics and insurance center. i did not have many choices. right now, we are on cobra beyond that. >> how much are you paying a month? a lot? >> a few thousand dollars a month. >> so what does that tell you about in the averageiowan who
does not have a job? a few thousand dollars a month is beyond their reach. what do you do? >> back in the 1990's, when i was working on a lot of these things, i was working with dick armey, try to provide quality -- equality. i have said this for a long time. it is fundamentally unfair in the tax code that if you have an employer provided plan you have tax-free benefits. if not, you have to pay with after-tax dollars. like i do. why would the government discriminate against the people who should be doing more, as opposed to the one that have an employee provided? it has never made sense. i have proposed a refundable tax credit.
in the 1990's, we were concerned about budget constraints and the like. the opportunity with repealing obamacare, you will have resources to deal with this. people want to make commitments to make sure that we have some form of availability of coverage for people. having a refundable tax credit idea to help individuals and families purchase health insurance is a better approach. the top-down approach, from their employers' health- care. >> would there be a means test for that refundable credit? >> again, i would have to go back to the bill that i introduced. i have not planned for it yet. i will certainly take a look at
it. as far as a means test, generally speaking, higher income people are generally in church -- insured. originally, a flat amount of money respect to income. as you go up the income scale, the number of people participating in this will be small. >> one of the aspects of obamacare, as you call it, pre- existing conditions, keeping children on your health care policy. >> pre-existing conditions is an oversold change. two reasons. anyone that has insurance right now through their employer who changes employers or move to another insurance policy is already covered by the pre- existing condition clause. that was never made clear by the administration. the only hole in the pre- existing clause that i saw from
the beginning was if you had individually-purchased insurance, and wanted to move to another individual policy. then you could get nailed. the biggest issue with pre- existing condition clauses has to do with people who do not have insurance and then want to get insurance. of course, the reason for that cost is you do not want to create a situation where people do not get insurance until they get sick or have an accident. the reason barack obama did not enforce the pre-existing condition clause is until the man did was put in. if you enforce it before, you encourage everyone to drop their insurance. if you do not need to have insurance until you are sick, why pay the premiums? particularly if you are young and single and do not have children. what the pre-existing condition clause would do, without an
individual mandate, it would lead to a much higher premium for insurance. it sounds great, but unfortunately, it there is the law of unintended consequences. with respect to pre-existing conditions, that creates a moral hazard that is detrimental to everybody. it is not really good. it can actually be bad. there are situations, of course, where people are in difficult situations because of pre-existing conditions clauses. in those cases, what usually find -- by the way, pre-existing condition, they only ask for one year. after that year, they cover them. in most states. most states have open enrollment. a lot of insurance companies have open enrollment. bluecross in philadelphia, for example. are there instances where this
is a problem? yes, but they are fairly limited. what i would suggest is, using that as an excuse for an entire government takeover is just a tip of the tale of the dog. >> [inaudible] >> you have to look at the uninsured. i do not know what the statistics are. it may be different because of the recession, but historically, in this country, the uninsured population generally turns over very quickly. it is not a long-term issue. second, you have a sizable part of the uninsured who are illegal immigrants. depending on the numbers -- 45 million? 47 million? i do not know.
>> who are uninsured? >> pro are uninsured. so you have roughly a third of those folks who are not going to be covered under any system, unless we are going to guarantee insurance benefits to people in this country legally. i did not know many people who support that. -- illegally. you have the people that are chronically uninsured. this is a fairly small amount of the population. what we see in medicaid, we have billboards all over the place trying to get people signed up. there are a sizable number of people in this state that are eligible but do the opposite because they do not do what is necessary to do so. so when you look at the chronically uninsured that are not eligible for medicare and it
is a very small number. do we need to transform the entire health-care system to take care of a small problem? >> so there is not a problem in the country with health care? >> i do not think i said that. i said it was a very small number of people who were chronically uninsured. >> for those few people that are chronically uninsured -- >> as said before, probable tax credit, an opportunity for them to get a basic policy. certainly, i would encourage basic catastrophic insurance policy, which is a medical savings account-type of policy. as you know, those programs are relatively inexpensive. is that the best possible health care plan for everybody? no. but not everybody has the best house, the best food, the best car. this is what we have to look at. all these other necessities of life, we allowed for people to
have varying degrees of creature comforts, if you will. why? we are people that ration our resources based upon what is important to us. health care has to be one of those things that is in the mix of things that we make decisions about, as to what kind of money we want to allocate. there was a woman here the other day, she complained to me that she has to pay $200 for a prescription. basically, i summed up. this $200 keeps you alive. she said yes. and i said, you are complaining about $200 keeping you alive? what is your cable bill? cell phone? how can you complain, $200 a month to keep you alive, and that is a problem? that is a blessing. it is this idea that we have permeating through the country that health care is not
something that you pay for. trust me, if people thought that they would not have to pay for it, someone else would dictate how we have to constrain the cost. a greater necessity that healthcare is food. do you have food insurance? should americans have food insurance? >> [inaudible] >> they certainly were for a long time. the farm programs were for a limited number of commodities. a very limited. pennsylvania did not have big farm program for most of the agriculture in our state. we did not have it for the apples, peaches, strawberries, go on down the list. we had a cheap food program for the main staple crops as well as things that we did not eat, like cotton, which have little to do with keeping prices low. it had everything to do with the
politics of agriculture. i will accept that. but it is only a limited area of agriculture. i would say, we did not have a federal policy to encourage people to buy food insurance. but if we did, imagine how much food we would consume. imagine if you went into the grocery store and you pay 5 $1 a month and you could all the food you wanted? there would not be prices on anything. you just put everything in your card and check everything out. that is five and a $32. you pay $42. how much are people going to shop? how much are people going to worry about what they buy? that is the problem. we see this all the time. if you have pain in your back, it has been bothering you for a while, you go to the doctor. if you had to pay for the cat
scan, maybe you will say, i want to see if something is wrong. maybe if it is that $400 to pay for the cat scan, you do not do that. but now you do it because you have to pay copiague for $4. everybody here pays for that $360. is that a good allocation of resources? i would make the argument that it is not. is there a chance that something severe is happening? probably unlikely. those are the kinds of things that happen every day in health care system. people are not connecting treatment to dollars. in fact, they inject treatment to dollars. the only when the government has figured out how to deal with that is to control from the top, limit access to care, which is exactly what is going on with obamacare. >> we just went through a battle
on the debt ceiling. it looks like we are not out of that discussion. >> we kicked the can. >> talk about your philosophy about government debt, spending, deficits. >> i have a pretty long track record on this. i was a principal advocate for a balanced budget. i strongly believe that is the long-term answer to maintain fiscal responsibility. i would argue, to maintain freedom. i heard you talk about how freedom is essentially at stake, in this election, with obamacare being, i think, the nail in the coffin to take people's freedom away and have them be completely dependent on the government for things that are essential to their life. limited government is forever gone. we see that in every socialized medicine country in the world.
freedom is a zero sum game. neither government has control or you have control. in this case, this thing flops. one of the other reasons i support a balanced budget amendment is, it limits the one the size of gdp since world war ii. by limiting government as a percentage of gdp, you guarantee freedoms, you guarantee the government will not takeover. 40% of the economy in this country. when the government is 40% of the economy in this country, people are going to be less free. it is that simple. having a cap on the size of government, having a requirement to have an exit ramp if there is an emergency, if refits of the house and senate
and president decide to exceed that budget limit, we can do so. of course, in the senate, you need 3/5 to do anything. >> which means they do not do anything. >> first off, getting 3/5 of the senate is not an easy thing to do, particularly on funding that can be seen as by passing a constitutional requirement. i think you would find it hard to do, unless there was a real need. >> but as we have seen, even urgent needs are difficult to get through even a simple majority of congress, let alone two-thirds. >> we find it hard when you have no leadership. this president has provided no leadership in this fight. you have to look at my record of what i have been able to accomplish. i was the author of welfare
reform. ending federal entitlements. that is what i am suggesting we do with medicaid. some people would say even more of something more luck would hold onto, income support. we had an end to federal entitlement. >> besides education and medicaid, what are some specific places where you would cut from the budget? >> i have talked about a whole host of programs that i would send back to the states. what we did with welfare, we kept it. all these are entitlements, which means they grow exponentially. they are capped, -- the problem is, the growth of these programs -- >> we are asking about cuts.
>> most people in washington would agree, if you take a program that is growing at 8%, which is where medicaid is, and say that it will not grow at 8%, that is a cut. that is reducing the federal government's obligation, going forward. >> let us say the balanced budget amendment is in place today. >> first of all, i do not advocate -- some people think that we can balance the budget tomorrow. it would be irresponsible to do that. you cannot cut 42% of the budget tomorrow. if you look at the amendment, five years from ratification. of course, ratification could take up to four years. so you are talking about a blind path. that is irresponsible path to get you there. the first thing you do to reduce the budget deficit is to get the
economy growing. the president had done everything he can to stop the growth and innovation in the country by oppressive government regulation. tom barrasso was on the floor a couple days ago talking about an analysis that he did where he said government regulations promulgated last month by the administration were costing americans $10 billion a month. it is suffocating. one of the things we need to do is look at how we can get growth going in the country by changing the regulatory environment from what this president has done. again, command and control. we know best. we will tell you how to run your business. from health insurance to farming, the government says this is what you have to do and how you have to do it.
and it is contracting business, paralyzing business. plus, you have a president who returned a, -- just like franklin roosevelt -- beat the crap out of business. you do not care about anybody, we are going to tax you. why do you want to do business in this country if you have somebody who's going to be as aggressive anti-business as this president is? they do not have to, and they do not. you throw on top of that the fact that we are implementing this health care bureaucracy. taxes and mandates will be in place. businesses are saying -- and another one. energy. the president is raising energy costs by the most in history. if you are not allowing -- if you have permits in alaska -- we have a pipeline that may be shut down because there is not enough oil going through it.
not only will it be a situation where we are not drilling more, but we will lose the deduction we have, and the president is doing nothing about it. we have an opportunity to drill in anwar, north dakota, deep shore -- no. and then he wonders why gasoline prices are high. the second largest natural gas find in the world. most of it is in the state of pennsylvania. we are drilling 3000 wells in pennsylvania a year. we have the second-largest for rural population in the country. folks are having wells drilled in their backyards. there are complaints. people do not like all of the hydro fracking going on. it is destructive because there are big and heavy trucks out there, but people are getting wealthy.
what happened to natural gas prices? people are going to start moving back to america to start producing things related to natural gas. we can do the same thing with oil. if we had a president that went out -- according to officials, we have 263 years left of oil in the ground at this rate of extraction. even if we double the rate, 130 years of oil left in the ground. technology is able to get to reserves that previously were and accessible. >> is there anything off limits? >> no, why? come to pennsylvania. we are drilling oil and gas wells all over the place.
besides the hydrocracking, you have a couple of weeks where there is an intense amount of activity where you frak the stone. the rest of the time you have a pump in the ground. people have been living with this for years and years. this is not an inherently dangerous activity. have any of you been to anwar? people say that i what is a plot. it is the rocky mountains compared. it is dead flat. it is a frozen tundra. nothing lives there. we are drilling oil and gas wells in people's backyards in pennsylvania, around children. and that is ok. but we cannot drill where there is a terrible walking by every other year? it makes no sense. -- caribou walking by every other year? we are in the energy crisis and
the president cannot do anything for the country. that is a region ideology. i do not know how people can say that this is a rational policy, that we can sacrifice the economy of this country -- you are worried about people uninsured, how about drilling in alaska? a lot more people would be injured. i would expect that there are some here who say that we can do that because of the caribou. to not talk to me about the uninsured. you cannot have it both ways. you have to look at what is ideal but it -- reasonable. the president is an ideologue. he is driven by a belief that we need to have less, we need to -- government needs to be rationing these resources.
>> should government be doing anything to stimulate jobs? >> absolutely. energy policy is one. getting manufacturing going again. i grew up in a steel town in pennsylvania. most of my friends had good, middle income salaries. it was but created a stable, healthy place for kids to grow up. that it was when i was growing up here we have 20% of the country's manufacturing. it is down to 9%. that is one of the reason we have lost the middle-class. we do not make things here anymore. we still make things, but because of technology, the people necessary to make those things has reduced, so we need to keep employment level is up. of course, you also hear about outsourcing and products being developed here, but then
manufactured somewhere else. he want to have those jobs here. as i mention with natural gas, heavily used by industry, stable, now we have one of the things. we can do the same thing with oil. we could have two things that would be an incentive for manufacturers come back. as you know, manufacturing uses more energy than most other businesses. we can provide those businesses stability over time. on top of that, create an environment for them to be successful. well, i have done that. i have proposed a 0% corporate tax on all corporations in the country. for those who want to manufacture here, for our market, and for export markets, we can create a tax system for you. one of the biggest problems is that our tax system does not blend well with other countries
taxes.the world -- vat zeroing out the corporate world taxes, incentivizing companies to come here to produce for this country, and to be an exporting country. that is an important element of increasing the quality of life. >> before we get off energy, i want to ask you about ethanol. besides the tax issue, is there a role for ethanol in this country? is it that good or not bad in your view? >> i try not to say good or bad. i say what the market would dictate. what i have said it to all energy producers -- i get folks talking to me about wind, solar, all these other programs. i feel like we should let the market work on energy. i am for more energy production. i am not neutral on that.
i am for more energy production. if we can create a market where we can get through things, like allowing expanded drilling, then i think we will have a much more robust energy future. >> you would oppose the tax incentives -- >> i have said that i would phase out the blunders' credit over five years. some were concerned about distribution. so i signed off on this to expand distribution. i understand there is an inherent problem with access to market with at the mall because of the folks who basically own the distribution chains in the country, the oil companies. you would like to say let the market work, but when the distribution of a product is controlled by the creator of the product, that is a legitimate place for the government to step in to say that we need access to the commodity that should be in the marketplace.
but what i have learned, -- i was talking to some people in my staff about this. we were talking about this dramatic technological event risen at a law making it competitive. every time i made with ethanol folks, i say, you are doing about as bad a job as anyone i have seen in promoting their products. everywhere i go -- it ethanol, it is a boondoggle. it is an energy consumer. i say, that is true, back when i voted against that of all subsidies in the 1990's, when people have skills in their backyard producing ethanol. but it is not true anymore.
i voted against subsidies, because at the time, they did not make sense. but to the credit of the industry, they have done a lot to improve the efficiency and technology politic to ethanol. i was -- i knew i was on the right track when i said that ethanol was a viable source and al gore said that it was not no. in fact, i believe it has a role in the energy mix. but what i have said to oil, gas, coal, it is a level playing a field. we are going to treat every business equally. every business is going to have depreciation. all of those things that you would give, in terms of tax treatment, for any other business in the country, should be given to the energy industry. it should not be given extra
credits for what a normal business would be. they can run up advertising, depreciate their assets, normal thing that our tax treatment, but no extra tax treatment for the industry. >> back to the question of preschool and the role of the family, as you articulated it. what would you say to families where parents -- both parents work outside of the home? should the white stay at home and look after the children? >> i will not make that choice for anyone, but i want to create an environment where there is flexibility. if one parent wants to stay home, the government is not the reason that they are not. if you go back to the days when there were more parents, one person staying at home, there are reasons for that. however, one reason that we have seen a dynamic change is the increase in federal taxation on
the family. if you go back to 1952, the tax of an average american family to the government was about 2%, the social security tax. now just social security and medicare is 15%. on top of that, income taxes. again, your family may not pay a lot as far as a percentage of income, but it is another 10% on top of that. so you are looking at about 26%. the average family paid that much to the government in taxes. well, let us look at what the second earner of the family generally brings in. again, i have not looked at the numbers in a few years. what it was -- the average second earner brings in 25% of what the first brings in.
just do the math. what is the person doing? they are making up the difference from what the government took. so we are in no better shape. we have someone working outside of the home to pay the government for what they have taken away from the american family. there are lots of reasons, other than one financial, that people want to go out and work. that is fine. that is their decision. my mom and dad worked. in fact, my mom made more than my dad. i do not think there is anything wrong with people who want to do that. but i tell you, a lot of family do not want to do that but feel like they are forced to do that simply to make ends meet. why can we be like we were when i was growing at as a kid? one of the reasons is because of the taxes the government takes on families. bottom line. >> questions about the way
forward in afghanistan? >> i give the president credit for making a commitment to follow through with the general's request, but he made a fatal error, in my opinion, by telling the enemy when we were leaving, or that we were going to leave, before we achieved success. you have to remember -- i'm trying to remember the name of the movie. and the mujahedin are standing there, the helicopters are flying away, the u.s. basically abandoned afghanistan. the afghanis have experienced americans not being there. here we are in a situation where
we are back at it. the president says we are leaving. i do not think anyone can question, purely political. we are going to get out right before the election. that is reprehensible. that the president would put his political fortunes ahead of doing what is right for the men and women that he is now asking to go out there and sacrifice and die to protect our freedoms, and he is putting an artificial deadline center around his political fortunes. >> so what is your and the game? >> success. -- end game? you make the commitment for how long it will take to succeed, you have a strategy. success does not mean wiping out the taliban and having a jeffersonian democracy in afghanistan.
it means having control of the state, the taliban being a manageable threat by the government that is in place. the government in place is not necessarily the government that is there now. one of our problems is we have invested too much in hamid karzai, not enough in the traditional way that afghanistan have been able to govern itself in the past. we need to real look at the governing structure in afghanistan. the one thing i would tell the people of afghanistan, we are not going to walk out on them. >> so that could take several more years? >> there is a threat to this country will with a reconstituted taliban. we saw that in vivid terms on 9/11. we have an obligation to leave that country when that the
threat can no longer be constituted. that is the objective in afghanistan. >> thank you for your time. >> good meeting you. >> my pleasure. >> coming up at 6:00 eastern, ralph nader hosts a debate on whether boating should be required by law. mexico and australia are among the countries that require citizens to vote. in prime time, also on c-span, a look at the operation to capture or kill osama bin laden, with the man who trained the navy seals who carried it out. special commander olson is interviewed at the aspen security forum event. >> it may not surprising that we
think good things come in two's. >> live coverage of the senate on c-span2. >> or you can see them when everyone at the c-span library. >> c-span2 has nonfiction books every weekend. >> listen to us on your iphone. >> follow us on twitter. >> it is washington, your way. [applause] >> and now, labor secretary hilda solis. she talks about the expectations of workers and what she calls a tax on workers on collective bargaining rights. she spokher comments are about n
hour. >> thinking regarding that clips. -- thank you regarding that clip. i also want to thank one of my heroes amongst us. that is none of them president joe hansen. thank you, joe, for everything you do. -- president johannson. i did not see another colleague who is here. for having the foresight to begin this organization almost a quarter- century ago. thank you, larry, for everything you do. and also to each and everyone of you, for coming here today to spend your saturday here. it means so much that you care. i just have to say to you from the bottom of my heart, thank
you for being here and for supporting jobs with justice. we got folks from around the country here today. labor leaders, community leaders, students, faith leaders, who are fighting every single day, representing working people in 46 cities and 24 states across this country. you are doing very hard things, things that i know will change the lives of working families and our communities. every day that you are working, you are helping to energize so many people and our community. you are giving voice, you are inspiring young people, enhancing their skills and ability to organize, organize, organize. every day that you are mobilizing folks, you are in our
neighborhoods, coffee shops, in the streets, churches, and you are knocking on doors. this is how the movement will grow. this is how we will rebuild our economy, together. this is how we will fight off those other obstacles and challenges we are facing today, and that our brothers and sisters are facing around this country. brothers and sisters, i tell you, this is how we will win, by working together. i know it is early in the morning, but i want to ask you. just by reading your program and seeing what you committed to, what you started yesterday, when you will be doing today and tomorrow, i ask you, are you fired up? are you really fired up? are you ready to go? ready to move? i say, yes, we can. yes, we can.
>> yes, we can. >> if anyone here today doubts what is going on, they do not understand what is happening in our society. as your labor secretary, i am telling you, everything you are doing here today does matter. one day after president obama named the labor secretary, i, and others said that there is a new sheriff in town. there is a renewed faith in government. understand what is meant here. for the most part, most american businesses play by the rules. that is to say, they pay their taxes. but there are a few bad actors that do not. they need to understand that we will not let them take advantage of our laws that govern our country and the workplace. after being sworn in, you need
to know, because of the help that we have from this administration, i was able to hire for the first time in more than a few decades, well over 100 new investigators to work in wage and hours, to help ensure workers are paid properly in the workplace, for work that they have already completed. and you need to know that we have collected hundreds of billions of dollars in back wages from employers who have cheated their workers out of money that they are legally owed. but even with this extra manpower, even with our enforcement successes, we all know that the department of labour cannot be at every single worksite in this country. that is why i am proud to institute an open-door policy to make sure we are listening to
workers, that we allow for organizations, like jobs with justice, to join with us. i hear that deep commitment to protect all workers. especially, the most of vulnerable workers, such as those who come to this country in many different forms, but what i want to point out to you are those workers that come here under the h2b visa program. you all know about this case. it is the vendor built landscaping case in nashville. you have helped to correct the injustices of workers faced because of your work.
there was a group of 42 latino guest worker that came to this country seeking a better life and a better wage. but vanderbilt on landscaping paid these workers less than minimum wage. they violated their labor standards act. they will fully violated the rules governing the h2b program, and they misrepresented workers themselves, and their plans for the workers. they thought they could get away, but guess what? they did not. and why not? because jobs with justice helped us discover the violation and get the word out. [applause] just last month, we resolve the case against a better bill landscaping. we collected back wages for these workers. we assessed fines and penalties against that company, but we did
not just stop there. because of its violations, vanderbilt landscaping will not be able to hire a single h2b or guest worker at all for the next three years. [applause] together, with the excluded workers congress, you have fought for these guest workers and justice that they deserve. wage fraud, as you know, is the legal, and in my opinion, immoral. we simply cannot stand by. i am excited to be here today for so many of those reasons. your energy and your enthusiasm is contagious. [applause] and you need to know that your work here at jobs with justice is even more important now than ever. every day that i wake up, i
think about ways to help find americans and our workers good paying jobs. this administration, the obama administration, wants to build upon that. they want to provide more jobs for construction workers, to help build and repair our roads and bridges and waterways. president obama wants to extend our payroll tax for middle-class families, so they can have more disposable income to buy goods and keep our small engine of growth, small businesses, growing. and to keep people employed. did you know the president is also fighting for an extension of the unemployment benefits that will soon leave office after december, if we do not move on that? these are things that the president is calling us to action on. and not just people here today, but our congress and senate. we must let them know that these
are all issues that have been talked about and debated in prior years, prior months. in many cases, they are supported by both parties. so we need to make sure we continue that. we also need to continue to grow jobs in this new service sector i call the green energy economy, where we can create new high-tech industries where we can provide high paid -- high skilled, high-paying jobs. that is what i authored the green jobs act almost four years ago. it was because i knew the power that could be unleashed to help put people into better paying jobs. why not allow for all of diverse workers in our country to be able to reap those benefits? that is my standard, that is what i would like to see happen, as we continue to push out green jobs and innovation. we want to invest in education but also expanding those who
need support, financial support, the pell grant program. a very important program that helps to lift families up. be able to send first-generation students, like myself, who was able to go to college because of the pell grant program. the program works. [applause] and we want to make sure that our trade policies actually do not export more jobs, that they enable us to provide products here that we can send overseas that other people will buy. we need to promote things that are made here in america. [applause] and we need to be reminded of something the president did. he took some bold actions by making an investment and working with the big automobile corporations. some of you may say, well, i do
not totally agree with all of that. well, let me tell you, those auto workers back on the job right now, they are mighty proud they have a good paying job. assembly lines are running. we are producing energy- efficient vehicles. people in those towns who were pretty much wiped out are now back on-line. i think the president for doing that because now we have more autoworker's working on different ships during the day now, and they are earning better salaries. we are not going to let these jobs go overseas. we are going to invest in the united states. [applause] manufacturing jobs are very important to the economy. the president knows this, and so dubai. that is why it is important for us to do everything we can to make sure that families have the ability to get into good paying jobs that are producing good
products and services, here in these united states. and jobs for justice, we cannot do it alone. we need your help. we also need to help youyour vo. right now, we know that across this country, the state officials and the governors are using this financial crisis, we do this for a downward spiral and to attack collective bargaining rights. you and i know that this is not the way to go. we recognize the labor unions of the middle-class. citizens can vote out there. to have their voices heard. >> in wisconsin, the public-
sector workers are now facing a recall election, -- [applause] those politicians need to understand it that american workers need a seat at the table. we know collective bargaining gives them that voice. to demand safer working conditions and to make livable wages to provide for their families, to give them dignity and respect and a chance to earn a better life for themselves and their children. barack obama understands that labor unions are not the cause of the american crisis and problems. they have always been a part of this solution. the unions have always helped to clear up pathways for people to get into the middle-class. as soon as the president took
office he signed several executive orders to outlaw government money being spent on union-busting activities. he supported a strong national mediation board committed to making certain that union elections are democratic, and under the old law, anyone who did not vote in an election was counted as a vote against the unions. and this does not make sense. our discount those who actually vote, like any other election. at the department of labor we are doing our part. we have proposed new rules requiring employers to report spending on those attorneys and consultants that they hired to persuade workers not to form a union. this is a very important role that you need to know about.
we believe workers have a right to know who is trying to influence them and how much the companies earnings are being spent on the anti-union activity. there was some good news for those who believe in collective bargaining. i am asking you to recall the 40,000 workers who recently were able to vote to form a union for the first time. these are important milestones for men and women who keep our airports safe. just recently, yesterday, what about the 4000 workers who are going to go back to work, and 70,000 construction workers who will be building and repairing our air force -- our airports? this took leadership and i think the administration. but believe me, i want to tell
you i know what it means to be part of a union and what they represent. at an early age in my own household, this became clear to me. my father represented the teamsters. he represented immigrant workers in a battery recycling plant. my mother worked as a toy factory i will not name, and later fled the state and went south and never came back. she worked there very proudly with the united workers. growing up in my community, in california, it was very hard for our family. the family of immigrants, first generation. the air was not always fit to breathe, and it was not always clean. we lived near several gravel
pits and come -- polluted landfills and one that was very close to the school yard, an elementary school. now this is one of the largest land fills in the country. the area code is 9021 know a few miles away, beverly hills. there are zero landfills and gravel pits. i grew up with a very wrong understanding that there were halves and have-nots in the world, but my father taught me about the difference that you can make in the lives of workers and their families. i remember very distinctly, sitting down with my father and he would say to me in spanish -- spanish, come and be here at the kitchen table. and i thought, am i in trouble? and he would reach into his pocket and he would pull out a crumpled papers.
four or five of them, and there were scribblings on their in spanish and he would recite what was written, and he would translate them in english. basically, they were the grievances of the workers see represented at the plant. they were given meager pay and the work was 30 and very harmful and the conditions are unsafe. my father taught me that injustices' exist in the workplace and workers need to have a voice and someone to represent them in the workplace. my mother taught me to love and respect all caregivers -- caregivers who keep the family strong. one of her first jobs when she immigrated here was to serve as a domestic worker and this was before i was born. the problems she faced back then
of the same problems millions of women face today. domestic workers to some of the hardest working out there, and it does matter. [applause] it matters to the elderly man who needs help opening up his bottle of medication, or taking a bath or changing his clothes. for callous loved ones, and domestic workers can be the first face that they see in the morning and the last one they will see before they go to sleep at night. domestic workers give so much of themselves, physically and emotionally, and they are, indeed, professionals that we rely on. and yet, millions of workers struggle to get by, living near
poverty levels. earning a median income of less than $17,000 per year. answer the caring across generations campaign, they wanted to be in respect, no matter who they are. this is under the laws of this great country, the united states of america. we have to nurture the contributions of the immigrant workers so that we can win the race to out educate and out innovate the global competitors. that is why president obama will not let up on the fight for a more sane and humane 21st
century immigration system. what this means is taking people from the shadows. giving them a place in society so that they can pay their taxes and live a life, and they can have a chance at the american dream, and this also reminds us that in the immigration reform, we cannot forget the children. it is very important that you all understand that this president's is fighting hard along with many people to help pass the dream act. we have the opportunity to harness the talent and the patriotism of the students, to offer a path of citizenship to those who serve in the military or excel in the classroom.
they are the future and in spanish, we say -- we don't have a person to lose or talent to spare in these hard economic times. i know that people are struggling right now. i travel around the country and i hear many stories and i heard some stories yesterday in the department of labour. please stand and be recognized. the housekeepers who came to see me, yesterday. [applause] it breaks my heart, as the labor secretary, and as the daughter
of the prime working immigrants, that earlier this year, we were reminded by the hundredth anniversary of the triangle shirtwaist fire, or 146 people, mostly immigrant women and girls tragically lost their lives. the fire left many lessons from which we can all learn. and i pay particular attention to three of them. we must defend and protect the most vulnerable workers. we have to be vigilant on worker safety for all of the workers, and workers must have the right to collectively bargain. this is a democratic principle. to honor the legacy of the fire, we invited group of female organizers for the first time ever in our history to the white
house, and they told us why they had chosen to organize their workplaces. we heard from a child care worker in ohio, and we heard from a domestic worker in new york and we heard from ernestine, who works at a wal- mart. and it will liotta, who works at the call center. they have their voices heard and they made it clear, that a century after the trial, -- the triangle fire, workers still need and want to have a voice at the table and that their jobs. with better wages and benefits. but we still have work to do. collective bargaining means a seat at the table to the man working conditions that are decent, better health care and
safe workplaces. this means respect and dignity, and a chance for all of us and our children and our generations of children to learn a better life in this country. and thanks to your efforts, jobs and justice -- and for your continuing efforts to stand up for working people, we're making progress in so many ways. and the fight right now, and the fight of our lifetime, something we cannot forget. for the men and women, those who are out of work, for the children and grandchildren, we should not despair. we should take inspiration from our history, and our families who have struggled, and we should hope for progress and change. let's make this commitment today, to get this country back
on track. to do this for all of america so that we can shine the light of hope for many who would like to call america their home. i am moved by what you all have been doing, and you have an advocate and supporter, and the president believes in everything that you do. he is with you, the president and this administration. and we need to have you now more than ever. especially in the crisis that we are having with many of -- that is likely to rob the young people of their future in this country. this is something we can win because we saw this happen not too long ago. and i hope that you will remain steadfast and ready, and
prepared for what is ahead. esperanza, hope is coming. it is for me and i know it is for people i have seen across the country. now, they have a voice and people are listening. keep your voice, loud and clear. go back to your states, back to your churches, and back to your places of employment. you need to let people know that we are by your side. and i want ask one more thing. last week i had the privilege of spending time with 40 acres in california, near fresno. with cesar chavez and richard chavez and the farm workers. i am reminded what was presented
by the father at the time, that was presiding over this. he said that above all, we have to respect all the workers regardless of where they come from, and the means that they have or don't have, and this is what cesar and richard and dolores huerta continues to do. muchos gracias. and si se puede. yes we can. [applause]
>> thank you for your tremendous advocacy and leadership on behalf of working americans, and we are honored that you are here with us. she made it work to be here this morning. >> we have the voter turnout which may approximate this -- the voter turnout does not mean very much in the health of the democracy. some of the most vicious dictatorships in the world to get voter turnout of 95%, when
they hold the elections. >> this is a responsible act, and if you do not have the time, we will make a decision that is life-and-death for many people. >> today and tomorrow, a ralph nader and the study for responsive law hosts a series of debates looking at controversial topics. monday, the pros and cons with mandatory voting, with the competitive enterprise institute. then professors from georgetown and the university of massachusetts. debating the controversial, today and tuesday at 6:00 eastern on c-span. primetime tonight, a look at the operation to capture osama bin laden, with the man who trained a team of navy seals to carry this out. eric olson was interviewed by
the correspondent -- and we will see tonight at 8:00 eastern. republican presidential candidates are starting by it -- stopping by the iowa state fair. you can see comments by mitt romney, and friday at 11:00, herman kain, rick santorum, and tim pawlenty. that is live on c-span. there is a look at the political scene. "washington journal" talked with jason neterra about the debt situation here and abroad. this is about half and hour. >> this is the editor of human events. >> thanks for having me on. >> are there political winners and losers out of the debt ceiling? >> obama will have this bus
tour, and on twitter, they asked what the bus should be named. the biggest name was "downgrade one." this is the first psident that has experienced a downgrade under his watch. he will go down as the first president with a downgrade. he will be bearing the biggest brunt of this because he is the president of the united states. have their finger on the polls on how americans felt about this? guest: michele bachmann is the front-runner in iowa. she skyrocketed out of nowhere. it has been resonating with a
lot of gop primary voters. there were a lot of presidential candidates like mitt romney that came out against the budget deal that happened last week. he has been all over the place, not giving specific details, answering yes or no to many policy questions. there is banks within the gop primary. they're looking for a leader that will clearly demarcate a line in the sand, between those that want a government policy or a more free agenda. host jason mattera hosts a radio show in new york and is editor of human events. he ithe author of "obama
zombies." looking at how the latest approval ratings are coming out, but 41% of registered voters say they would have -- would like to see president obama rhee elected. re-elected.e guest: whoever the gop nominates, you would think they would walk right into the white house. people are worse off today than they were back in 2008. the gop needs to focus on the economy. how to get job reductions. we keep hearing about this compromise. we needed to get people back to work. the job report, 9.1%
unemployment -- more people exited the job market than there were jobs created. that has to be the number one priority. it is a call back to president reagan. which signs the you hear in your hometown? more hiring or out of business signed? host: you write about your generation and for the perspective of those in their 20s. what about republican candidates and how they are appealing to younger and more potential voters? guest: i think there is a huge vacuum and a big opportunity for someone to do would barack obama did in 2008.
he was holding speeches on college campuses. he was organizing rallies with dave matthews and the braun james, who were called choices at the time with kids. they a reaing out to young people, telling them how obama care is a torpedo. the mind-boggling debt will eventually be my kids generation that will have to pay that off. we are graduating from college now with the student loans and no ability to pay them off. young people in particular are more val about the obama administration. host: you're not hearing from anyone yet. guest: those people historically
will not move and shake elections. i do not think there is an appetite -- to spend resources on college campuses. ron awaken his big policy address on college campuses. -- ronald reagan gave his big policy addresses on college campuses. but it is about reaching the next generation about ideas of freedom. host: there is talk about the conservative tea party being responsible for this. what do you think? guest: the s&p did not blame the tea party but outlined what we
already knew. when you have a one-year nation's credit card, you have problems on your hands. we need to stop. -- going on vacations for having worked today. the tea party is why the trajectory is about what to cut, not what to add. we should be thanking the tea party for that. they did point to our entitlement crisis clearly they will be insolvent, especially medicare. the s&p acknowledges this.
many tea party members, but not democrats. host: alexandria, virginia. good morning. caller: couple of comments. with the s&p downgrade, they will have to send other motivation when they make a $2 trillion mistake. i think the numbers speak for themselv. my question for your guest is, two numbers and ideas. i think it is 3% or 40% of the
tax bill. of the past 10 or 15 years the top 2% of earners. republicans may give a little bit in terms of revenue, whether it is deductions. maybe we can get a trillion and a half dollars in cuts. guest: he was on the republican line, but that is no republican. they're not calling for the expiration of the bush tax cut. after the tax cuts were accelerated in 2003, 4% growth. we have revenue increases for
the federal government, every single year. unemployment was at 6.4%. we saw it with ronald reagan and george w. bush. we have seen the failures of government spending. how much more should we be spending and should we confiscate from people to satisfy from one of your cat in the see the things he knows best how to run the country. -- bureaucrat in dc that thinks he knows best how to run the country. and -- in order to get a real structural reform, they need a
senate in republican hands. they have a single. in order to get a home run, they need it for the senate and the gop. ho: democratic caller in new jersey. caller: i have always found in light to solve the problem, you have to identify the source of the problem. when we were the biggest lender nation in the world, rather than the biggest debtor nation. we were going at a nice flow.
a long came a political pundit policymaker. it works something like this. when republicans are in power, they will spend like drunken sailors rather than invest. they will cut taxes but only on our base. the haves and have more. the industrialists were taking that money and investing them in technology or equipment for most important, the engine of our economy labor. and they were gambling in our casinos, as we know them, the stock market. someone else came along and said government was the problem. it needed to be shrunk.
but " what is needed to be shrunk as the engine of our economy. the working class. that is where demand comes from. a perfect mobile laboratory that we have in south america, take a look at what has happened in chile. response froma our guest guest:. . guest: that caller was all over the map there. liberals are about government grd. when ronald reagan instituted the largest erican tax cut in history, we saw for the next 25
years after that, our country grew by almost doubled. we had the largest piece of jobs ever. it cut every single income bracket. the largest percentage cut, the lowest income bracket. they should keep more of their money. their money, they earned it. i will not get into greed and in view. host: we have until august 16 to see who these members will be on the committee. six from the house and six from the senate. six republicans, six democrats. who do you hope to see on that
panel? the committee has until november 23 to make a recommendation. who do you hope to see involved in that? will the democrats give on entitlement and other things? guest: taxes are not the problem at all. spending has been the problem. it has increased. barack obama racked up more deficit than george bush did in all eight years combined. spending as a ratio to gross domestic productas grown. it has been the biggest driver of a debt. that haso be on the table. it is hard to compromise with quality that has not offered any pe of budget.
was the president's budget unanimously rejected by the senate, it is the gop they have put the best ideas on paper. democrats have allowed that to be used politically against them. i would like to see paul ryan, brian johnson, the representative from ohio. i want to see people address fiscal matters going forward. in order to get the economy moving, you have to get incentives. that could have the --
host: us go to another jason on our independent line in las vegas, nevada. caller: i have lived in this country for a while. i do not know what you are talking about. you are saying, cut medicare. 51% of poor people to not pay taxes, so cut local bread and milk to pay xes. you are still talking about millionaires, tax breaks. let me ask you a question. remember when they used to care about our country. now all we care about the guys
that make you sign tax pledges. when you got in office and say jobs, andot one republican has created a job since. you can smile at your bewildered look. host: we can exchange opinions here. let's get a response. guest: a lot of hate fromhat c-span caller. paul ryan outlined a plan to save it and a target of those that really need it. democrats have put no proposal on the table.
donald trump and bill gates do not need medicare. we should target of those that need it. this hatred for those that are the job creators in this society, it is sad to go about. in reality, when sebody is making money, they are investing that money back. with all of this government spending, -- it is capital that otherwise would be used to create jobs. host: let us look at this story from abc news. alabama pushed the program to an
all-time high. here are the numbers. some 45.8 million people collected food stamps in may. one person in this article, someone that can speak for the region says, people are selling to make a mortgage payment. food stamps are on the rise. they do not feel embarrassed. guest: it is unfortunate. we are in dire economic circumstances right now. barack obama spent more in three years than george w. bishop did in all eight -- bush did in all eight years.
what the democrats want to continue to do is spend more. it does not help grow the economy or get people back to work. more revenue for the treasury. that was a14,000. we have to go to the model that works. host: maine, next up. caller: i wanted to ask you if a republican presidential candidate on the right or any that may be serving on this super committing? have the democrats put the crown
jewels like social security, medicare, medicaid on the table for reform or have the republican party in put deep, lasting fundamental cuts into the defense budget on the tle? we are spending 700 billion to a trillion dollars a year in a 3.5 undeclared wars, 140 countries, where germany and japan, taking care of a country that has 10 times the gdp. the republicans, just like the democrats do not seem to want to let go of their favorite spending programs. isn't it time to be realistic about entitlements?
guest: we have to be careful about cutting defense now. are there places that can be cut? congress should be looking at that anyway. you do not need a super coittee. defense is not the driver of our debt but medicare and social security. it shows you the demratic priority. so security and medicare are insolvent. they are failures. we have to be careful in how we go about it. we have a lot of peoe threatening with political affiliations. host: one person saying this.
guest: the deal that was voted on, more democrats opposed it than republicans. what is absurd is that -- they wanted to hold the line on government spending d tax increases. we are supposed to come to the bargaining table where the vice- president is calling people across the country terrorists? it is absurd. host: here is a response.
guest: that government stimulus worked really well, didn't it? you have to wonder at what point would satisfy these individuals, no one more government spending is not going to do the job. they propose even more infrastructure spending. barack obama came into office talking about jobs. the puck is going to stop with him. he is the president. people are going to hold him accountable. not one member of congress. host: kansas city, missouri. caller: you talked about the two-party. it is basically movement of magnant ignoran fueled by racial hatred. it is protecting the wealthy. i do not want to be condescending here.
from 2001-2007, roughly 68% of the nation's income growth went to the top 1%. our econo is based upon -- 7% is consumer spending. all of the income of the nation's, the growth in income, the top 1%, the bottom 99% still has the money to spend. we have a demand problem. you are trying to fix it with a supply side effects. you are doing the opposite of what needs to be done. guest: we talk about supply-side economics, which is leing people keep more of their money.
they can invest in their companies, take more vacations, buy products. if you are paying taxes, i think you are paying too much. if we do not have that, it will affect our economic liberty and purchasing power. host: we have an image showing the breakdown on t voting for the debt ceiling bill. you say, you do support this. taxation one of the bargaining chips here. guest: there is nothing republicans can do until they control to the province.
-- >> all this week, a series looking at jobs in america. states, private and public partnerships, and job creation. our jobs in america series is every morning this week at 9:15 eastern. this afternoon, president obama briefly spoke about the first ever downgrade of america's credit rating. a sense of urgency to tackle debt problems.
>> after witnessing 1 months of wrangling over the debt ceiling, they found our political system to be a problem. americans continue to wonder. warren buffett and those that know about good investments, they said that if it wasn't -- was a aaaa rating, i would give it to the united states. that does not mean that we do not have a problem. we need a balanced, long-term approach deficit reduction. that was true last week. that was true last year. that was true the day that i
took office. we did not need this ratings agency to tell us that the gridlock in washington has not been constructive, to say the least. we knew from the outset that a prolonged debate over the deficit could do enormous damage to our economy and the world. that threat, coming after a string of economic disruptions, has not while the market's. it has dampened consumer confidence and slow the pace of recovery. this is all a legitimate source of concern. the good news, our problems are imminently solvable. we know what we have to do to solve them. our problem is not confidence in credit. markets continue to reaffirm our credit as amongst the world's
safest. the challenge is the need to tackle deficits over a long term. last week we reached an agreement that would make historic cuts to defense and domestic spending. there is not much further that we can cut in either of those categories. what we need to do now is combined spending cuts with additional steps. tax reform that will ask those that afford it to pay their fair share. modest adjustments to programs like medicare. making these reforms does not require radical steps. it does require common sense and compromise. there are plenty of good ideas about how to achieve long-term debt reduction that does not handle economic growth right now. republicans and democrats on the fiscal commission that i set up
and put forward good proposals. john boehner and i came up with good proposals when became close to agreeing on a grand bargain. it is not for lack of plans or policies. it is a lack of political will in washington. the insistence on drawing lines in the sand. a refusal to put what is best for the country ahead of self- interest, party, or ideology. that is what we need to change. i realize that after what we just went through, there is skepticism. republicans and democrats on this joint committee, the idea that they will be able to reach a compromise. my hope is that friday's news will give us a renewed sense of urgency. i hope to present my own
recommendations over the coming weeks about how to proceed. that committee will have this administration's complete cooperation. i assure you, we will stay on it until we get the job done. of course, as worrisome as the issues of debt and deficits may be, the most immediate concerns of most americans, including concerns for the marketplace as well, our jobs. the slow pace of recovery coming out of the worst recession of our lifetimes. the good news here is that by coming together to deal with the long-term debt challenge, we will have more roles by an key proposals that would get the economy to grow faster. specifically, we should extend the payroll tax cut faster. so that workers have more money
in their paychecks next year and businesses have more customers. we should continue to make sure that if you are one of the millions of americans out there looking for a job, you can get the unemployment insurance that your tax dollars contributed to, putting money in people's pockets and more customers in stores. in fact, if congress fails to extend the unemployment insurance benefits that i called for, it could mean 1 million fewer jobs add half of a percent less growth. this is something that we can do immediately. something that we can do as soon as congress gets back. we should help companies that want to repair or roads, bridges, and airports. thousands of workers that have been without a job can get a paycheck again. these are democratic proposals. -- not democratic proposals.
not big government proposals. these are ideas that traditionally " republicans have agreed to. there is no other reason we should act on them other than that. i know that we are going through a tough time right now. we have been going through a tough time for the last two and a half years. there will always be economic factors that we cannot control. earthquakes. spike in oil prices. slowdowns in other parts of the world. how will we respond to those tests are entirely up to us. the markets will rise and fall. but this is the united states of america. no matter what some agency might say, we have always been and always will be a aaa country. we continue to have the best
universities, some of the most productive workers, the most innovative companies, the most adventurous of sharpeners -- entrepreneurs on earth. we have not only the capacity, but the will to act. the determination to shape our future. the willingness in our democracy to work out our differences in a sensible way. to move forward. not just for this generation. we will need to some in that spirit today. the american people have been through so much over the last few years. dealing with it the worst recession, biggest financial crisis since the 1930's. they have done it with grace. they are working so hard and all that they ask is that we work just as hard in this town to make our lives a little bit easier.
that is not too much to ask. ultimately, the reason i am so hopeful about our future, the reason that i have faith in these united states of america is because of the american people. because of their perseverance and courage and willingness to shoulder the burden is that we share as one nation. one last thing. there is no one who embodies the qualities that i mentioned more than the men and women of the united states armed forces. this weekend we lost 30 of them when a helicopter crashed during a mission in afghanistan. their loss is a stark reminder of the risks of that our men and women in uniform take every day on behalf of their country. day after day, night after night, they carry out missions like this in the face of enemy fire and great danger.
in this mission, as with many others, they were joined by afghan troops, seven of whom lost their lives as well. i have spoken to the generals in the field and i know that our troops will continue the hard work of transitioning to a stronger afghan government, making sure that afghanistan is not a safe haven for terrorists. we will press on and succeed. now is the time to reflect on those that we lost and the sacrifices of all those concerned. these men and women put their lives on the line for this nation. they come from different places. with backgrounds and beliefs that reflect the rich diversity of america. no matter what differences there might have had as individuals, they served this nation as a team. they made their responsibility
together. some of them, like the 30 americans that were lost this weekend, gave their lives for their country. our responsibility is to make sure that their legacy is an america that reflects their courage, commitment, and sense of common justice. thank you very much. >> you can see the president again talking about the u.s. credit rating and the troops that were killed at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span and right now on c-span.org. >> i do not want to change the system just so that we can feel good about voter turnout, approximating what they have in australia. the fact is that voter turnout does not mean much in the health of the democracy. some of the most vicious dictatorships in the world have a voter turnout of 95%.
>> of voting is a responsible act and if i am an informed, i should not be cornered into making a decision that is life and death for many people. that would be immoral. >> ralph nader and the study for irresponsible laws host a series of debates over concert -- and the study for responsible laws host a series of debates. taxing stock trades, derivatives, currencies. debating the controversial, today and tuesday, 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> primetime tonight, a look at the operation to capture and kill osama bin laden. special operations commander eric olsen is interviewed by
martha raddiz. with senate adjoined for the august recess, you can see "booktv" all this month on c- span 2 in prime time. monday, a look for aliens and top-secret military projects in area 5 -- "area 5." jennet comant, a boca julia and paul childes in the oss. that is tonight on c-span 2. earlier today, members of the national association to advance fat acceptance said that
>> one out of six children are being bullied. 86% of those children were visible handicaps. a federal law that does not protect those children is a federal law without teeth. that video that you just saw was put together by members, amateurs, to get the message across. they put forward the youtube video is for us. at the end of the press conference, we will show you who the winner was. great talent. great a motion. great emphasis on what it is to be that child that was picked on. putting together the child advocacy tool kit, we will show alternatives. health at every size. dealing with the situation of a
child's size, bullying issues, etc. there is a fact sheet with key statistics about bullying, etc., opening your eyes. right now, most states have an anti-bullying ball, except for five. next slide, please. no matter the age. sex, genera, etc.. rigid gender, etc. -- gender, etc. >> i joined naafa in the early
1990's. was 2005 before i became a member of the board of directors. this act falls short of protecting all children from bullying. naafa was created in 1969 to eliminate description based on body sides. in recent years, most of our focus has been on adults with high body weight. a few years ago our focus began to turn to children. that is not to say that there has been any decrease in discrimination toward adults. the opposite is true. discrimination continues to increase against higher-weighted people and has only continued to
increase. now we are talking about people of all ages. we began to see so-called interventions, where children of a higher body weight were being taken from their homes. taken from loving parents. they were now being accused of abusing their children by feeding them the wrong things or too much of the wrong things. naafa became involved and attempted to assist the parents of the children, who were literally being kidnapped from their homes by state governmental agencies. these interventions received a huge amount of publicity. what was not widely publicized was the fact that these same children, for the most part, were quietly returning to their
homes after a few months in foster care, where they saw no significant change in their wake. naafa and others began to consider what we might do to help the families of these children, who are being removed from their homes. children dying at younger ages than their parents, for the first time in history. dr. william push of children's hospital admits, although he was the originator of this claim, his claim was not based in any scientific research. rather, it was his own intuition that led him to this claim.
now this claim of his, based on his intuition alone, has been repeated over and over, and over again, until it is now accepted as gospel. according to the center for disease control, the rate of our nation's children -- the weight of our nation's children has been stable for 10 years. wait a minute, are we not in the middle of a rapidly increasing obesity academic for our children? the size of our nation's children has remained the same for the last 10 years. what we are told, we have been told that our children of higher body weight are now suffering more and more from terrible diseases. such as type 2 diabetes. the fact of the matter is that
type two diabetes is still extremely rare in young children. along came the well-intentioned, but somewhat misdirected, let's move campaign, led by our own first lady. the directive is rather than educating to create healthy practices for all children, focusing on the health, children of higher body weight have been singled out. the focus has been on -- not on improving children's health. losing weight always improves health? this is not true. 50 people father of abnormal weight are healthy. 50% of people who are in the
abnormal -- overweight category are healthy. so, we conclude from this that normal body weight does not equal health and high body weight does not equal disease. why does see this -- naafa c. this focus on body size as a problem? good nutrition and enjoyable movement is good for everyone. secondly, by focusing on only those children with higher body weight, we further stigmatize and already marginalized group of children. indicating that children of higher body weight are 65% more likely to be bullied and people
of normal body weight. how this translates to in real life is that these children suffer from more bullying. perpetrator's feel justified in their actions. after all, the first lady said that these kids have to go. third, when children of higher body weight are told that they have to wipe out of the city by their generation, those words
are translated into -- we must eliminate obese children. they hear that their body is bad. they hear that thin equals good, fat = bad. they hear that your body is bad. i believe that it was not the intention of the first lady to cause more pain and suffering for these children, but i also believe that this is one of the consequences of focusing on reducing body size as opposed to reducing health. other consequences include poor body image, body dissatisfaction, low self- esteem, bullying, disordered eating, lower expectations for future success, and sometimes
even suicide. by focusing only on children with higher body weight, as i stated earlier, good nutrition and movement are good for everyone. just because a child's body is that a lower weight does not indicate that this child practices good eating habits or healthy behaviors. studies have indicated that children do not really -- truly understand the meaning of health and a good diet until they are around 12 years old. today we see children as young as three years and four years of age expressing fear that they are, or will become, fat.
we want children to be comfortable with their body size and shape, not to judge others. and not living in fear of what might be normal for them. over the past two years, nasa has worked closely with research scientists, a child advocacy experts, mental health professionals, dieticians, and numerous other health care professionals, to help us develop the child advocacy tool kit. my colleague will be here to tell you about how it can be well used. last year the safe rules improvement act of 2010, a bipartisan bill introduced in the senate, by senators bob casey and mark kirk, helped to
prevent bleeding in schools. it would require schools and districts with designated federal funds to except codes of conduct specifically prohibiting bullying and harassment. conduct based on a student's actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity court of law or race. or religion. to do notice anyone missing? what about the children of higher body weight? those that are 65% more likely to be believed? how about the extremely tall or very short children?
why is physical appearance and body size, weight and height, not included? why not protect all other children from bullying? that is why we are here today. we are here to advocate that children of all sizes -- these unintended consequences that i mentioned earlier are why our children need advocates and programs that are health center of and not wait-centered. unless someone like you, who cares a lot, steps in, nothing is going to get better.
>> thank you, peggy. good morning to the members of the press. supporters, colleagues, guests, thank you for coming. i also wanted to thank our colleagues and volunteers who helped to put this together. i wanted to explain to you how to use the child advocacy tool kit. it is available for free at our website online. the tool kit was designed to be very flexible. it can be used as an impact tool on various topics, highlighting examples of weight discrimination and some at risk children with discussion questions, promoting healthy body image, explaining healthy
sizes, taking a health-centered approach. how to become an advocate, promoting programs. we have testimonials from young adults on their experiences. there is additional information from web sites, articles on diversity, body image, self- esteem, bullying, and exercise and movement. it also serves as a reference of specific areas of focus and interest. child advocacy tools can be utilized by individuals. educators are the most influential people in children's
lives. therefore rather than engaging students in these topics, using discussions scenarios in the questions, that is a great start. counselors can speak to students about bullying and body image. coaches interacting with kids. physical education programs, shared with other colleagues, rewarding body-positive, wait- neutral behavior. parents are advocates by teaching their children to be wait neutral and respectful of bodies of all shapes and sizes. even other concerned individuals that care about children can be empowered to use a specific part of the tool kit. the child advocacy tool kit can be utilized by organizations. school districts can use them for teacher in service training.
service organizations can provide training to administrators and staff, counselors, and news leaders. school committees can use the toolkit to help developed an intimate, wordless policy in school study. parents and other organizations can make recommendations to provide recommendations to parents on how to be an advocate. ideally this take a village approach to the issue, especially with respect to parents, educators, and counselors, these serving our organizations and the community as a whole can adopt and incorporate the concept and
project descriptions of comprehensive plans by and bully-free environments for our children. we look forward to hearing from individuals and organizations that are utilizing the tool kit and developing other ideas, initiatives, and projects. again, thank you for your time. >> good morning. i am the managing partner at this group and serve as an advisory partner and have been doing so for a little over one year. you might ask why i am standing here. you look at me, compared to my
colleagues on the left. this is pretty simple. words matter. whether you want to use the progressive terminology of fat -- aggressive terminology of fat -- fat, or the culturally sensitive language of obese, these words matter, demonstrating how often it hurts all people. obviously, i am not a person of size. i could be characterized as a gym rat. i have seen what our nation's addiction has done on dieting and obesity. we have a dieting academic -- epidemic in this country. size andon a person's overlook the fact that there is an epidemic of eating disorders by and this country. as a gay man living with hiv
aids, i can tell you about discrimination, harassment, and intimidation. within the gay community there is a serious problem when it comes to eating disorders because gay men are obsessed with how their bodies look. they will go entire weekends without eating. where is that i and mrs. obama's let's move campaign? these three roles of discrimination, harassment, and hatred, are all to blame. the senate bill is actually 506. she was referencing last year's legislation. i want to make sure that we have that information. we will have to put this all together more later.
why is this important? why do we need federal legislation? all five states have legislation that the state level except for montana, south dakota, michigan, and hawaii. obviously, state laws are not working. some people might question why we would need federal legislation with education. indeed, it is enumerated as a states issue. hatred and violence at the federal level, that is what this law does, and it is why we feel this was necessary. the safe schools improvement act, the purpose was to address the problem of harassing students in public, elementary, and secondary schools. piggybacking on what peggy said,
looking at the class as a protections in the legislation, like race, color, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion. that children, children of size, obese children are being bullied two to three times more than their counterparts, why, why in god's name, would they not be included? any other distinguishing characteristic that might be defined when that agency, i come back to -- if we are going to take the time to enumerate these classes, why would you not include the one class of children that receives the brunt of this and is ongoing? i was not going to put together
the video that you saw at the beginning. the idea came into my head as i fought back to an ad by kellogg's back in 1998. the advertisement basically said that if your kid is that in being bullied, eat kellogg, you will lose weight and solve the problem. what kind of message did that send back in 1998? ironically, the advertising standards authority determined that the ad was in poor taste and kellogg's took down the advertisement. but that is the types of thing that you saw at the beginning of this press conference. my good friend from canada was asking me, was it -- do the canadians around the world not look to the united states on
issues like this? on size discrimination, we are actually behind the curve ball on this one. canada is ahead of the curve. a study was done of 5749 canadian youngsters in which they gauged and came out equal to a cancer patient. not because of their size or weight, but because of the treatment that they endured because of their size and weight. in closing, even though michelle obama's intentions are good, including the focus on health and nutrition, one of the things that she said was that children of size could expect